Elon Musk is removing blocking people from 𝕏

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

13 hours ago, randy123 said:

Awesome news. No website should have a feature that allows you to block other people from seeing what you post. It's censorship, and its annoying. 

If you dont want to hear from someone, just mute them. You wont get dms or see their messages. Blocking them is dystopian. 

That's exactly what fraudsters wants. To be left alone, to have their content boosted by botnets and seen by millions, and let the most vulnerable marks self select to fall in their fraud.

I remind you that Mario Nawal championed by Elon Musk as a citizen journalist and a paragon of twitter, is a fraudster shilling blockchain that built his reach with botnets.

 

Block and Block Chains are (a weak) tool to protect yourself against fraudsters deploying botnes and frauds. Elon Musk originally declared he wanted to demolish twitter botnets, and is consistently promoting use of botnets and weakening the defenses against them.

[wanderingfool2]

16 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Does this mean I need to make custom filter to uBlock to remove Elon Musk's Tweets from showing to me since my blocking doesn't work anymore? Oh no, well any way good that I only look for *wink wink* and *cough cough* stuff from X-Twitter so I saw Don Musk's ego boosts only if I accidentally got lost to the frontpage. I will still make that filter just because I can and I believe that would piss off someone that not only I blocked their not-important messages but also that they cannot do anything about it.

Well I'm not sure it's even been shown yet, but it seems like only the button to block was removed; not the actual blocks.

 

You can still block people on DM's which would seem to imply that the blocks aren't being removed as a whole; but rather the idea that someone who is blocked can now still see your messages and interact with the tweets you do.  It should in theory stop the full on echo chambers that you can get with some people.  Like I mentioned earlier, there is a particular person who touts FSD as being the best but still uses a bypass mechanism; and he actively blocks anyone who points it out...by blocking the ability to block there will be a lot people who can post and make comments about the fact that he actively bypasses the safety mechanism.

 

 

[Dracarris]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:37 PM, Drazil100 said:

maybe this prevents people from blocking out legitimate criticism to hide the fact that they are scummy?

This is in a nutshell how the majority of people operate on Twitter. Scream at everyone that does not conform with their own opinion and then block everyone into oblivion until you are alone in a echo chamber with people that agree with you.

[jagdtigger]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:42 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

It should in theory stop the full on echo chambers that you can get with some people. 

You cant change anyone's mind with force, or in this case a forced removal of a feature. Its up to every individual to decide who they want to interact with and who they'd like to fully lock-out. And in some cases a flat-out block is very warranted. Sadly i have such a case at work, that idiot thinks its fun to piss off ppl, and wont stop winding the spring even if its evident to everyone else that a few more turns and the coil spring pops......  The only way to sort-of disarm that not-so-educated sorry excuse for a human is to totally ignore him, like his not even there.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

You cant change anyone's mind with force, or in this case a forced removal of a feature. Its up to every individual to decide who they want to interact with and who they'd like to fully lock-out. And in some cases a flat-out block is very warranted.

I've often found the people who block first, are the ones arguing in bad faith. Blocking and muting should be last-resort options, but sometimes people just don't get the message that their interaction is unwanted.

 

To reframe this, Imagine a public street, and every time you want to go to the 7-11, some shill for bitcoin jumps in your way and won't leave you alone as you go inside the 7-11 and follows you until you cross the street. That is what conversations on twitter is like when a thread falls in front of the wrong audience by algorithms doing what they are supposed to be doing "driving engagement". Only the algorithms learned that most engagement is had by pissing people off.

 

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

I've often found the people who block first, are the ones arguing in bad faith. Blocking and muting should be last-resort options, but sometimes people just don't get the message that their interaction is unwanted.

As i said, if they dont want to listen trying to force them wont do any good.

[Drazil100]

11 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

You cant change anyone's mind with force, or in this case a forced removal of a feature. Its up to every individual to decide who they want to interact with and who they'd like to fully lock-out. And in some cases a flat-out block is very warranted.

Agreed. Luckily muting is still a thing which I assume has the same effect as block. The only difference will be that the muted accounts will still be able to reply and other people will be allowed to see these replies which I think is the goal. I do not know if Twitter will be functionally any different with only mute as a means of blocking. It might lead to more spam/harassment, but it might also be more transparent in regards to what people think of other people's tweets. I am not sure though.

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

I've often found the people who block first, are the ones arguing in bad faith. Blocking and muting should be last-resort options, but sometimes people just don't get the message that their interaction is unwanted.

 

This is why I always go out of my way (sometimes at my own expense) to be friendly to the opposition. You can't win anyone over by yelling at them about how wrong they are and telling them that they are whats wrong with society. You have to make the effort to try to understand their argument and where it is coming from (even if you completely disagree) and then re-frame your argument around their understandings. Unfortunately some people are so wrapped up in their beliefs that it's straight up impossible to get through.

[wanderingfool2]

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

As i said, if they dont want to listen trying to force them wont do any good.

Now lets see, there's the mute button, like I had said.

 

If you don't want to listen to someone fine, you can easily mute them, but many would go to block which would prevent the person from even responding to your tweet; so you are effectively forcing your sole idea then onto people, who may be looking at the reply for people who say counter to what you say.

 

If you don't want people to be able to reply to your tweets, then you should set your account to followers only; were you have to include the people who made requests to see your tweet (i.e. making a protected Twitter account).  Then you can limit who can see/respond to your tweets.

 

The simple fact is, most of Twitter is public accounts; which at that stage the public account shouldn't be able to limit replies from groups of people they don't like (simply because they don't like some of the opinions, or because they speak counter to what they are saying).  Like I said, it creates an echo-chamber; and the way block had it it would allow an echo chamber that you don't necessarily control...instead it's the people you follow who block that controls what echo chamber they create that way.

[Polderviking]

This platform still has users?

[HenrySalayne]

On 8/23/2023 at 6:18 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

If you don't want to listen to someone fine, you can easily mute them, but many would go to block which would prevent the person from even responding to your tweet; so you are effectively forcing your sole idea then onto people, who may be looking at the reply for people who say counter to what you say.

So what about shitposters just responding to every single tweet?

[Drazil100]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

So what about shitposters just responding to every single tweet?

I think the idea (assuming mute doesn't automatically do this) is that shit posters would appear below the show additional replies that offensive tweets get hidden if they are offensive enough anyway. Anyone can mute a shit poster even if you aren't the person they are replying to but blocking a shit poster means that if the original tweet's poster blocks them then you can't view the shit post even if you WANT to because they physically can't view the tweet to respond to it.

I don't know that this is the right move, but that's my assumption on how Elon expects this to go.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

So what about shitposters just responding to every single tweet?

To add to what @Drazil100 said.  Yes, it will be visible; but you could mute them and never have to see their messages again.

 

If enough people decide to mute the guy, the algorithm is likely to essentially demote the replies and relegate it to either the repliers followers (who would want to see it) or pretty much bottom of the barrel tweets that no one really reads.

 

While blocking might have some purposes, it's I think overly abused to the point where a creator can sometimes create their own echo-chambers where anyone who click on the thread would not realize that a lot of information is left out (because the creator banned them all)

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If enough people decide to mute the guy, the algorithm is likely to essentially demote the replies and relegate it to either the repliers followers (who would want to see it) or pretty much bottom of the barrel tweets that no one really reads.

 

While blocking might have some purposes, it's I think overly abused to the point where a creator can sometimes create their own echo-chambers where anyone who click on the thread would not realize that a lot of information is left out (because the creator banned them all)

People commenting in Twitter threads rarely add information. It's mostly opinion. You also have fans spamming and "enemies" spamming with one party overwhelming the other leading to mostly one sided views in the comments as well, completely independent from the blocking function.

 

Blocking is a form of content moderation, yes. It can also be used to moderate content into a certain direction - but only in your own threads. It's main purpose IMHO is to get rid of disruptive comments, harassment and hate. If Twitter takes blocking away, they need to come up with another solution for content moderation.

But therein lies the problem. As you said, maybe, eventually the algorithm will intervene - which we already know does not reliably work.

I see only two solutions: create tools for users to clean up their own threads OR employ an army of content moderators removing harassment and hate and other inappropriate comments. I sure know the latter is not going to happen, while they are removing the tool that allowed users to clean up their own threads. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

A replacement tool could instead demote comments into oblivion or shadow ban them to be less intrusive. After filtering out 5/10/20 comments from the same user, comments from this particular user are permanently demoted / shadow-banned. There needs to be something.

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If enough people decide to mute the guy, the algorithm is likely to essentially demote the replies and relegate it to either the repliers followers (who would want to see it) or pretty much bottom of the barrel tweets that no one really reads.

The problem with a mute feature is not dissimilar to the problem of the ignore feature on this very forum. If I ignore you, I can set it so I don't see any of your posts or mentions. It's essentially a mute feature and you're not being notified that I can't see your replies.

 

 

Now think about what that does to the conversation as a whole. Let's imagine I create a topic here about something while having you muted. You reply in there and I'm none the wiser. Other people can quote you and since I'm the creator of the thread, I'm likely still having notifications turned on, so I get to see the entire rest of the conversation happening, your content included, given that other's might be quoting you. 

 

Meanwhile, neither you nor anybody else (barring maybe the forum admins) know that I've put you on my ignore list. You might reply something to my thread that raises a valid point. But I'm never going to be addressing that point directly. What's the optics of that conversation between you and me to an outside observer? Am I dodging the point because I never address it, even though I'm completely unaware of it? 

 

And finally, I have to come back to the idea of free speech absolutism that Musk is such a fan of. If he truly were, he'd realize that having the ability to control my speech including to whom I choose to make it accessible to is part of that. That means that I want to not just be able to tell you to shut up but also to deprive you from the ability to hear what I say.

[wamred]

Wait I forgot about this. Did they ever do this lol?

[StDragon]

On 10/4/2023 at 2:00 AM, Dean0919 said:

People still use this social media?

Never underestimate the power of narcissism. Reddit user-base folded like a wet tissue, and Twitter/X (whatever) was going through a temper tantrum. But in the end, Elon wins, just as Steve Huffman and Mark Zuckerberg have.

The user-base is eating moldy cake and faking the smile of liking it.

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/21/2023 at 10:02 AM, Drazil100 said:

I agree. I think their argument is that government wouldn’t be allowed to decide what is and is not misinformation unlike a private entity. 
 

My argument is that’s why you host your own social media platform and make it as free or not free as you want. The internet is as free speech as you get provided you are willing to host. It’s your fault if you spout your opinions on platforms that don’t want them. 

no, because if your "opinion" is illegal and you're basically a terrorist organization that goes against everything your own country stands for, disguised as "social media" there shouldn't be any "free speech" for you, simply. 

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/23/2023 at 7:04 PM, Polderviking said:

This platform still has users?

apparently there is no shortage of narcissists (or worse) enjoying their "free speech" 

On 10/4/2023 at 7:17 PM, wamred said:

Wait I forgot about this. Did they ever do this lol?

nobody outside of aforementioned group knows or cares lol. 

[Dracarris]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:20 PM, Kisai said:

I've often found the people who block first, are the ones arguing in bad faith. Blocking and muting should be last-resort options, but sometimes people just don't get the message that their interaction is unwanted.

Sorry for digging this up, but this is especially and horribly bad on Twitter. People literally ban others that bring up valid points that carry a risk of popping their fragile bubble. It's insane. So many on Twitter want to live in their echo chamber where everybody agrees, it's so disgusting to watch.

It's also always quite revealing when you take a look at the hidden replies section (well hidden, accessible from first/original Tweet only) and literally all it shows is replies with criticism. These people first ban everyone with a different opinion, then go on and manually hide their replies, as Twitter will still show them (unlike as in Zuckerberg and Google land, where replies and comments of blocked people will simply vanish, but without updating the comment/reply counter, leading to very comical situations).

[EZBakeNShake]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:40 PM, Guest said:

Maybe they'll just delete spammer accounts. Better than blocking. 

Even with all that effort it wouldn't be worth it, thousands of spammer accounts and be made per second, especially if they're bot driven.

[Quackers101]

while bots are still way worse on his platform, he still wants to state how he "fixed the bot problem" by "please pay us monthly to fix all your issues and dont see any of the unpaid people as that is how things work".

[SADS]

Twitters just a meme spam fest now.

Every post, the first 5-10 comments are just blue check mark meme spambots crammed between a bunch of dropship junk ads.

 

I've also refused to update it... so it's still twitter on my phone

[Quackers101]

even more annoyingly, he is going to start charging people 1 dollar per year.

its a test in a few selected countries before it might go public.

his idea of "fixing" the problems he said he could solve "easily".

 

also to make "free users read only" and not able to engage with others. but still doesn't "fix bots"...

[Kisai]

On 10/17/2023 at 8:40 PM, Quackers101 said:

even more annoyingly, he is going to start charging people 1 dollar per year.

its a test in a few selected countries before it might go public.

his idea of "fixing" the problems he said he could solve "easily".

 

also to make "free users read only" and not able to engage with others. but still doesn't "fix bots"...

1$ a year is basically just going to hold back throw-away automated accounts, nothing else. 

 

I wish people, and businesses would just bloody stop inventing the wheel. Want to know who did the "paid account to verify you're not a (insert favorite insult)" bit first? SomethingAwful. Even then, people would pay for a new account just to keep going troll. Think of it a a "tax on stupid"

 

Most other sites? Like newspaper sites, just throw up a paywall and lose the entirety of their readship overnight. You don't even get any benefit to subscribing, it's just an obstacle to seeing the same thing (ads and all.) Before anyone forgets, both mens and womens magazines are 90% ads because that is what people buy them for. Shocker isn't it? 

 

No internet site has that kind of pull with advertisements. Internet users believe that sites with ads on them are hellholes. Hence Twitter is a hellhole. It has certainly become more of one since Musk bought it, and every ill-conceived change has only sent more people back to facebook and instagram, or to bluesky, mastodon and discord. Nobody sees Twitter becoming better. Heck, people ran to Threads by Instagram, realized it was still a crappy facebook product and just shrugged it away.

 

Remember Myspace? Why won't corporate dingbats stop myspace'ing social media sites. 

 

1. Acquire successful website known for doing X thing

2. Nuke X thing

3. Sell off the bones of the website to someone else when the primary userbase leaves

 

This happened to myspace, this happened to kickstarter, this happened to deviantart, this happened to livejournal, this happened to patreon, this happened to onlyfans, this happened to tumblr, this happened to digg, this happened to geocities, etc, the list is probably a mile long.

 

And before anyone goes "but that site still exists", 

- Kickstarter still exists, but a mass exodus happened when they got into NFT's

- Patreon still exists, but adult artists and game developers have to tip-toe the anti-NSFW rules

- DeviantArt still exists, but is now flooded with Generative AI garbage, and users have been pulling down their artwork due to the theft of their works to be used as NFT's

- Livejournal still exists, but everyone who doesn't speak Russian left the site when it was sold in 2007

- Onlyfans still exists , but the minute they said they were going to ban adult content, there was a collective WTF moment since that is the only thing the site is known for

- Tumblr still exists, but, Yahoo tried to ban the NSFW material from it so they could serve more ads on it, and as a consequence, sent nearly all the primay users of it (deviantart expats) off the site, who then subsequently started up on Patreon. 

- Geocities is dead. A victim of Yahoo! being bought by corporate idiots hellbent on misunderstanding how the internet works

- Digg is dead, everyone who used Digg is now on Reddit, and Redditors are fleeing for very much the same reason as everything else in this list.

 

Corporate idiots do not understand why the site is popular, and in an attempt to minmax revenue, they actually kill the primary user base.

 

As it stands right now, the "go to" site for fleeing twitter is Bluesky, not Mastodon. People want to use "one site" that they can just log into, not have to understand how to setup complicated fediverse stuff. Maybe stuff will change later, but Threads has largely been rejected for the "can't be an NSFW artist/creator", and likewise Mastodon is not going to be accepted by people with politically charged fanbases.