ExTwitter Makes It Official: Blocks Are No Longer Blocks
from the block-this dept
It has been rumored for a while that Elon wants to remove the official “block” functionality on ExTwitter, but now it’s official. The company has announced that it will soon start rolling out a new version of “block” that no longer blocks content, only interactions.
That’s ExTwitter’s engineering team saying:
Soon we’ll be launching a change to how the block function works. If your posts are set to public, accounts you have blocked will be able to view them, but they will not be able to engage (like, reply, repost, etc.).
Today, block can be used by users to share and hide harmful or private information about those they’ve blocked. Users will be able to see if such behavior occurs with this update, allowing for greater transparency.
This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, though I’d push back on people calling it a “crazy” idea. There actually is some logic to it. As many people will point out, even with the existing “block” functionality, you can still see the content in question if you just switch to an incognito view. And, of course, there is something slightly odd in posting some content publicly, and then expecting that certain people should be “blocked” from seeing it.
That’s the theoretical argument for why what Elon is doing here seems to make sense.
But reality and theory don’t always match up. The reality is that the current “block” feature acts as a form of friction to stop abuse, and it’s somewhat, though not perfectly, effective in that role. That friction does not stop abusive people from viewing tweets or passing them along, but it does seem to help in some form.
The simple fact is that (even though Elon probably doesn’t know this or care to look at the history), Twitter tried this. A decade ago. And it was a complete flop. Such a flop that Twitter backtracked almost immediately.
On Thursday, the social site tweaked the way users block others who harass, spam or otherwise bother them. Under the change the blocked user would still be able to see the profile and tweets of the other user, as well as retweet their posts.
By Thursday night, however, the change was gone, reversed in stunningly abrupt fashion after a flurry of user protests, on a platform perfectly suited for both flurries and protests.
Part of the issue is that the block feature is a somewhat crude tool for dealing with multiple forms of abuse. Some of that abuse is still stopped via the new version (blocking interactions, but still showing content), while an awful lot is not. That’s the real problem. While block is far from a perfect tool in stopping people from ganging up on and abusing people, it does help. And with the new changes, that mostly goes away.
This plan is taking away an important, if imperfect, tool for stopping abuse, while not providing any alternative. It’s likely based on Elon’s near total inability to have empathy for people who are not himself. Over and over again, he has shown that he thinks the real problems on ExTwitter are just the ones that impact him directly: spam and scam repliers (even though he’s made that problem worse).
He has no concept of marginalized and targeted people and the kinds of abuse and attacks that can be heaped upon them. Thus, a tool that works towards minimizing such an impact is not even remotely interesting to him.
At the same time, it’s been said that the legacy blocking system is expensive computationally, because figuring out who can (and who cannot) see certain tweets is a pretty complex issue. I’ve noticed that this system breaks a lot since Musk took over, in that in the last few months I have repeatedly seen tweets from people who block me.
So, what this seems to come down to is (1) Elon trying to reduce more costs as the company continues to collapse, combined with (2) an inability to understand or care about the actual harassment that happens on his own platform. It doesn’t seem like a recipe for success.
Filed Under: blocks, elon musk, engagement, harassment, social media, trust and safety
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “ExTwitter Makes It Official: Blocks Are No Longer Blocks”
This makes me think the change to blocking is also about Elon and his fragile ego: He wants to see whether people who’ve blocked him (or people he’s blocked) are talking shit about him behind his back. Why else would he push this useless change unless it was self-serving?
Re: As much as I like the idea of it
…I would think he already has made sure he has super-god-mode powers of viewing anything he wants.
But maybe he’s doing it for his friends so they stop asking him to look it up for them.
Re:
Also, it forces everyone who blocked him to still see his feed
Between This and the Automatic Grok Enrollment...
This definitely isn’t going help to keep anyone on Twitter, especially in terms of the ‘automatic scraping’ for Grok; I can’t imagine any artist still (somehow) on there wanting to stay. For which I’m thankful; I’m tired of artists I like to follow seeming to primarily post there.
I’m also rather curious to see how this new ‘block’ change works with both Google Play and the Apple Appstore; I’d assume that it still follows the rules, but maybe not.
I've heard conflicting claims about the change...
So if I’ve got this right, a user I’ve blocked can now see my posts (not that I’ve posted anything there since my departure for Bluesky). What I’ve read conflicting claims about elsewhere is whether or not I’d see the blocked user’s posts under the new system. Does anyone have a source confirming that I would or would not see their posts under the new system?
Re:
If you can still see the blocked user’s posts this feels like Elon wanting to make sure that if he tweaks the algorithm to force his tweets in front of people, the masses don’t have a way to ignore him.
Kinda doomed either way?
Sometimes I don’t know what’s worse (to be fair, whatever Elon’s supporting is DEFINITELY worse), Twitter’s irresponsible changes like this, ontop of the dystopian shit Elon’s favorite political party peddles, or the overmoderation and censorship that proposals like KOSA or already existing regulations like the DSA will supposedly create.
While I certainly prefer the left over the right, I can’t help but feel like the free and open internet is doomed to turn into an empty hellscape, empty of free expression, with only corporations remaining. And that thought makes me feel, depressed.
Now, I do hope I’m wrong about this prediction, but it’s the general idea I’ve got from it after reading an article on lawfaremedia (linking the article here for those curious: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-rise-of-the-compliant-speech-platform)
While it’s very possible I might’ve misunderstood the article, or that my prediction is simply incorrect, I’ve struggled to find any evidence online that doesn’t point to a much more restrictive and unfriendly future internet.
Re:
I feel like despair here is still rather premature. In the US currently there really isn’t much regulation of this kind to speak of and SCOTUS doesn’t seem on allowing there to be any such regulations. Also, as far as I can tell, the EU doesn’t really seem to care about applying the DSA to noncommercial platforms and definitely doesn’t seem to care about applying it to decentralized platforms.
Re: Re:
Still leaves most social media platforms and messengers at its mercy. Still, I’m not saying DSA is a bad thing. My main worry as the article laid out is that new speech regulations may stifle a lot of..Well, speech, online. Not to mention access to any kind of content deemed remotely controversial.
It just kind of echoes those efforts to childproof and sanitize the web with zero nuance, you know?
I’ll admit I feel a bit more clearheaded after airing all that, but I’m still not sure which way the winds are blowing, so to speak.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, I am worried as well. I’m just not quite sure these efforts are going to be successful at not being struck down or not being repealed at a later date.
And to be honest: given the use of VPNs to evade Russia’s very recent blocking of Discord, I’m not actually sure how effective these laws will be at preventing companies from popping up in other, less over-regulated countries.
Re: Re: Re:2
If it’s bad enough to require a VPN and the company moving elsewhere, it’d be bad enough to kill the current platforms.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t end up like this, even though I find myself going back and forth between feeling hopeful and hopeless.
Re: Re: Re:3
No disagreement there.
Re: Re: Re:
Many of the new speech regulations have yet to be test in court so watch this space.
Re: Re:
Also KOSA has stalled in the House.
Re: Re:
Also, the first part isn’t entirely true. There’s AV laws either in effect or introduced in like, 20+ states now?
Re:
Its very unlikely the free and open internet is doomed to turn into an empty hellscape, empty of free expression, with only corporations remaining. Feel you have misunderstood the article and many parts of the DSA are likely to end up im court.
Re: Re:
I mean, will they?
Even if they do end up in court eventually, it’s not gonna change what the article talks about.
The only thing that’ll change it is some actual, implemented speech/expression protections.
Besides, AV related bills have only ever been challenged in the US, and while that matters, it’s not going to change much in the EU, I think.
I don’t think AV is the WORST thing, I’m partially fine with it honestly, but the issue is its invasiveness and how expensive it supposedly is to implement. And since companies would rather save money, any kind of verification system is more likely to just purge whole swathes of content from the internet, from the sound of it.
Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t exactly given up on things. It just feels hard to outwardly believe in a desirable outcome that both solves the problem and doesn’t create a whole new, even bigger mess.
Re: Re: Re:
The AV parts are unworkable likely to be delayed over and over again until it is scrapped. But right now its up in the air if the guidelines on protection of minors part of the DSA will force ID verification and many are against it. Also purging whole swathes of content from the internet likely interfere with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Funny thing is I heard AV not even really apart of the DSA bill itself and is something some EU politicians start pushing as facts to go after adult sites.
AV laws are very likely to be challenged in the EU either way.
Re: Re: Re:2
I guess we’ll see. I’m not against the idea of AV, but I do feel like it’s being pushed for at the wrong time. There is no widespread, privacy-safe method for doing it yet.
I suppose with something like the EiDAS thing we might have some degree of it in the future regardless of what happens, but it also sounds preferable to just straight up whipping out your ID for any website that asks.
Re: Re: Re:3
I think any from of AV is unworkable and will never be privacy-safe but we will see what happens but I do think it will fall apart.
I am very worried about how the DSA is bring used.
Re: Re: Re:4
I can’t really tell that it’s been used yet, admittedly.
That, and the rest of the EU commission wasn’t particularly happy with how Thierry tried to use it.
'Only MY privacy matters, the rest of you remove those curtains!'
Narrator: And as we can see the pot of water has had it’s temperature raised by quite a bit this time, let’s see how many frogs decide that it’s too hot for them now…
It is beyond rich for Elon Musk, the man who lost his gorram mind over the idea that an account could post the publicly available location of his private plane(which he may or may not be in at the time), is now deciding that no, users of his dumpsterfire of a platform do not get to even attempt to prevent people they choose from being able to see everything they post.
Re:
A weird statement to make, when the “curtains” only activate for certain people and you’re intentionally putting on a show for everyone else. Is it really “privacy” when you’re intentionally letting 7 billion minus a dozen people see you?
Re: Re:
Uhh, yes? Privacy is not an all or nothing thing, just because you are choosing to publicly post for however many people are watching a given account does not lessen the value in being able to tell select individuals ‘But not you. You I want nothing to do with, or for you to have anything to do with me.’
Re: Re: Re:
I agree in principle, but we’re not talking about “all or nothing”, we’re talking about “all minus these specific 5 people when they choose to identify themselves”. There’s something weird about that to me, as if it’s a parody or reductio ad absurdum of the very concept of privacy; having “privacy”, except when it comes to 99.9999999% of people.
That’s like saying I’ll allow anyone to see me naked, except people who admit to being Elon Musk when asked. And if you look exactly like Elon Musk and say “no comment” when asked, that’s totally fine.
That’s not to say that this change to “blocking” is a good idea. But I think it’s disingenuous to say it eliminates privacy, or that such things are “no longer blocks”.
I think we’re talking about slightly different things here. I’m talking about people who post for the entire world, minus several accounts, not posts that are only meant to be seen by those “watching” an account (and whose owner could presumably see the list of watchers, and may have to pre-approve).
Re: Re:
If I am performing, I am within my rights to have security show disruptive audience members the door.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s not a “right”, it’s an ability that may be granted to you by the venue. Elon Musk has chosen to revoke that, and it’s up to the “performers” to decide whether they’ll still perform under those conditions.
Anyway, this doesn’t really work with the “curtains” analogy. It’s more like you’re preventing certain named people from buying tickets, while letting them (and the entire rest of the world) watch anonymously through the window.
Such a flop that Twitter backtracked almost immediately
So it’s guaranteed to be a permanent fixture on ExTwitter
As usual per musk and xitter, the logic is flawed.
Before one of the worst buyouts in history, public profiles could be seen in incognito mode.
However, to stop scraping (read: inflate user count), only logged in users can now see most posts, if you are not you see some kind of popular posts.
This had the effect that blocked users had to create another account, which is a higher burden than using incognito mode (and even higher on mobile)
Apparently, Bluesky servers are a bit overloaded because of a sudden surge of people signing up. I certainly hope this blows up in the man-child’s face and then he doubles down.
Well if we hadn’t gone bonkers on third-party clients and API usage…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You bitches LOVE to cry about a service that none of you purport to use because it’s a “Nazi bar.” lol
Fucking dorks.
Re:
Twitter is still a widely used social media service despite Elon running it into the ground. BestNetTech and its regular commenters will keep talking about it because of that distinction. If you can think of any reason why we shouldn’t that doesn’t boil down to “stop insulting the guy I parasocially worship as a god”, you feel free to offer it up. Otherwise: You’re not stopping a damn thing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
If you don’t use Twitter, why do you care how it operates? Please explain.
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you care so much about what opinions people have about exTwitter?
See how that works?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Because as a loyal TD reader for several decades, I care about the propagation of disinformation, misinformation, and political propaganda on a site that once used to do a good job covering the Tech Industry.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah, so you haven’t been a loyal TD reader for several decades then because if you actually were you wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place, instead you outed yourself as another stupid troll pretending to be something you aren’t.
Also, the point I made went whoosh over your head.
Re: Re: Re:3
But your own question still applies to you. If you don’t want to read articles with Musk or ExTwitter in the headline, you don’t have to. You also don’t have to comment on the article whether you read it or not. I’m actually “a loyal TD reader” but I don’t read or comment on every article. There are several on topics I’m not interested in. I skip them. You could too. If you actually cared about TD, you’d stop spamming the comments section with useless comments that will not change anything. If you disagree with the direction of the writing, you’re free to leave.
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter is still a widely used social media service despite Elon running it into the ground. BestNetTech and its regular commenters will keep talking about it because of that distinction. If you can think of any reason why we shouldn’t that doesn’t boil down to “stop insulting the guy I parasocially worship as a god”, you feel free to offer it up. Otherwise: You’re not stopping a damn thing.
Re:
You get banned from grindr again bro?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Homophobic much, faggot?
Re: Re: Re: So that's a yes then
Wait hold on, are you trying to insinuate that I am both a homophobe and a homosexual? You do know that doesn’t make any more sense than you pretending to be fascist or a trannie fro post to post?
Re:
“You bitches LOVE to cry about a service that none of you purport to use because it’s a “Nazi bar.” lol
Fucking dorks.”
I have read there are many conservative type people that love to cry about abortion, a service that none of them admit to using, because … and here I have no idea why they would be so stupid about healthcare.
I guess what you are claiming is that one is not allowed to complain about anything if they do not use the thing they are ranting about. That is ridiculous.
Making twitter better only for abusers and bots, not for humans.
Re:
Given that Elon sides with abusers and thinks robot slaves are The Next Big Thing, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
I do think there are some positives to this change (though they are outweighed by the negatives).
So there’s basically no reason not to go back to Newsgroups now?
You can post aribtrary length messages and binaries, everything you post is going to be scraped, you can’t block anyone and must rely on client side filters.
Same.
Possible motive
I seem to have somehow made Twitter a lot better by simply blocking Elon and about ten other MAGA accounts. All I see now is anti-Elon, anti-Trump, and similar stuff. It’s great! Assuming I’m not the only person experiencing this, it may have come to Elon’s attention that people are able to use Twitter without ever seeing his hateful crap, which annoys him. Hence the change?
just stop using Twitter
Why would anyone but Musk’s pathetic fascist minions even use that dumpster fire?
Get off all social media while you’re at it. Toxic swill. At best, it’s just a way for corporations to foist advertising on you, and that’s at BEST. Musk is showing how much worse it can get.