One of the most important tools for trust and safety efforts is the “block” feature, allowing a user to entirely block someone else from following them. Yes, on Twitter you can get around this by g…
There’s been a big effort to block anybody with a blue checkmark since any major story or viral post will have them automatically bumped up to the top of the replies. So, when the whiners started complaining, he started openly considering this.
The article is a bit misleading. He wants to get rid of block for stronger mute as you can get around block by logging out.
The counter argument is that block is still useful because I block someone I want zero interaction with that person and people are too lazy to log out anyway so it kinda works in practice.
I’m not sure why is he stirring shit up. The block feature is on point with free speech philosophy he trying to push. If anything he should be making blocking etc. More powerful.
Huh why ? This doesn’t make sense
There’s been a big effort to block anybody with a blue checkmark since any major story or viral post will have them automatically bumped up to the top of the replies. So, when the whiners started complaining, he started openly considering this.
He will end up “compromising”.
You can block people, but only people without blue check marks.
Wanna harass someone, wanna be a troll, subscribe to Twitter blue and you can’t be blocked…
The article is a bit misleading. He wants to get rid of block for stronger mute as you can get around block by logging out.
The counter argument is that block is still useful because I block someone I want zero interaction with that person and people are too lazy to log out anyway so it kinda works in practice.
I’m not sure why is he stirring shit up. The block feature is on point with free speech philosophy he trying to push. If anything he should be making blocking etc. More powerful.
Actually he wants to get rid of “blocking public posts”