[HN Gopher] Twitter/X will let people you've blocked see your posts
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter/X will let people you've blocked see your posts
Author : Kye
Score : 26 points
Date : 2024-09-23 20:24 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Musk is right on this one. It wasn't serving any real purpose to
| let me selectively block other people from _seeing_ my posts (but
| _interacting_ does make sense).
|
| If I genuinely don't want someone to see my posts, I just can't
| put it on Twitter/X unless I have a private profile (is that
| still a thing?).
|
| Otherwise, it's a public platform, in that anyone can register
| with little more than an email address and see my posts. Claiming
| to block someone from seeing them seems like it provides a false
| sense of security to users.
| Kye wrote:
| Twitter itself recognized there are levels of public early on.
| The original site was _every post_ in one timeline.
|
| The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not
| meant for everyone at the event. The phrase context collapse
| came about and persists for a reason. A blocked person has been
| kicked out of the public local to the poster and their
| followers. It doesn't make sense for them to be able to
| continue to act like they're in the space, but just not
| speaking.
|
| The fact that someone can violate the rules and norms of a
| space doesn't mean you don't have rules and norms.
| bensecure wrote:
| "Can be seen by anyone in the world except for tom because
| fuck tom" isn't a different "level of public", it's just
| caprice. As the GP mentioned, if you want to restrict who can
| see your tweets, set your account to private.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Maybe caprice except in the exceedingly common instances
| where someone is the target of harassment. I mean this is
| the obvious example, there are others. In that case "make
| your profile private if you dont want to be
| harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.
| bgirard wrote:
| I agree if getting a seat at the table requires some vetting,
| but if something is being shouted publicly into a megaphone
| your analogy doesn't work. If something is so public that a
| logged out user can see it, it's weird of a logged in account
| to not see it.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| > The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not
| meant for everyone at the event.
|
| But that's not what Twitter/X is, it's more akin to standing
| in an open access field with a megaphone. You have no right
| to say who should be in the field or not, and if you don't
| want someone to hear something, the best thing to do is not
| say it in the field in the first place.
| Arnt wrote:
| It's bad UX. Telling people that blocked users can't see your
| posts mislead them, because all that's needed for as blocked
| user is to open a window in incognito mode.
|
| Good user interfaces don't tell users things that are far
| from true. Even if we all wish the things could be true.
| tadfisher wrote:
| How can I keep Musk's posts from showing up in my feed if
| blocking doesn't hide them?
|
| I think that's the real motivation, actually.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Every change breaks someone's workflow ...
|
| The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from
| people I dgaf in my feed was to block them.
|
| I was even considering creating a Github repo. with all the
| usernames I've been selecting out for years, so that people could
| easily de-shittify their Twitter feed.
|
| The set includes (excludes?):
|
| * the most prominent accounts that post political content; no
| partisan bias, they're all gone for me
|
| * most major news accounts, including anyone that regularly posts
| any kind of content related to any side of any war, ever
|
| * "science influencers" where the "science" are actually ads or
| some deranged guy screaming while wearing a lab coat
|
| * Ian Miles Cheong and the Krassenstein Brothers
|
| * hundreds of e-whores
|
| * hundreds of "I made 1 million dollars last week" accounts
|
| * ... and many more
|
| gg to that
| barbazoo wrote:
| > The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from
| people I dgaf in my feed was to block them.
|
| Do you see people's posts even if you don't follow them?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yes. All the time.
|
| My "For you" page is ~95% the things described above and only
| ~5% things related to the accounts I follow.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Much of the worsening of Twitter is centered around them
| deciding what you should see in order to maximize outrage,
| engagement, revenue.
|
| This means that in the replies to a tweet, for example, they
| can now rank highly all the spam and culture war bullshit
| that people have previously blocked.
| vfclists wrote:
| That should be OK so long as they don't get to respond to those
| posts or link to them, and that should include posts they are
| referenced in or embedded in.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| Referenced in? That is waaaay too far. That means if the person
| blocked you, you essentially can't talk about them.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| That's fantastic, Jason Calacanis blocked me, idk why, I think I
| said I didn't like one of the All In Podcasts and he didn't like
| that. But it's annoying because I like to see his posts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-23 23:01 UTC)