5 ms·

"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

"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 2y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment Super low-effort harassment, where the harasser can't bother creating a new Twitter account.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    It’s an additional barrier. It also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through. And if it’s so easy, why the need for this new “feature” to begin with?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible. The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist? In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Not every country does. Also, that ruling doesn't cover material edge cases. Should a public figure be able to block journalists they don't like? Oil companies anyone with an environmental leaning to avoid tipping them off on something they weren't searching for? We have a media-bubble problem in America that is increasingly defined by partisan lines. From a social utility position, clarifying that public means public strikes me as more important than edge-case harassment concerns. Particularly when the stakes are so low on both sides of the scale (due to the ease with which blocks can be circumvented and the fact that we're dealing with content the speaker has explicilty chosen to make public). [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        > In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Are you stating that you think this is the reason this is being implemented? As for the rest of your post, your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this thread.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Sure. But they may not know they've been blocked. > you think this is the reason this is being implented? No. I think it's being done to increase engagement. Engagement scales with outrage, and a pretty simple way to boost outrage would be by showing people stuff they've been blocked from. > your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this argument Not really. Blocking users from seeing your public content degrades weak relationships. My interest in what my state Senator is doing is a weak relationship; I don't think I'd be able to tell if they stopped e-mailing me for at least a full election cycle. Harassment, on the other hand, is a strong relationship. That provides circumvention motivation. My argument is that there appear to be marginal benefits to this policy. If the cost is making unmotivated harassers' jobs a little easier, inasmuch as it pertains to them viewing (not responding to) public content, that seems to be worth it.
- bensecure 2y ago
  > In that case "make your profile private if you don't want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable. If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.

JohnMakin 2y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment Super low-effort harassment, where the harasser can't bother creating a new Twitter account.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  It’s an additional barrier. It also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through. And if it’s so easy, why the need for this new “feature” to begin with?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible. The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist? In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Not every country does. Also, that ruling doesn't cover material edge cases. Should a public figure be able to block journalists they don't like? Oil companies anyone with an environmental leaning to avoid tipping them off on something they weren't searching for? We have a media-bubble problem in America that is increasingly defined by partisan lines. From a social utility position, clarifying that public means public strikes me as more important than edge-case harassment concerns. Particularly when the stakes are so low on both sides of the scale (due to the ease with which blocks can be circumvented and the fact that we're dealing with content the speaker has explicilty chosen to make public). [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        > In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Are you stating that you think this is the reason this is being implemented? As for the rest of your post, your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this thread.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Sure. But they may not know they've been blocked. > you think this is the reason this is being implented? No. I think it's being done to increase engagement. Engagement scales with outrage, and a pretty simple way to boost outrage would be by showing people stuff they've been blocked from. > your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this argument Not really. Blocking users from seeing your public content degrades weak relationships. My interest in what my state Senator is doing is a weak relationship; I don't think I'd be able to tell if they stopped e-mailing me for at least a full election cycle. Harassment, on the other hand, is a strong relationship. That provides circumvention motivation. My argument is that there appear to be marginal benefits to this policy. If the cost is making unmotivated harassers' jobs a little easier, inasmuch as it pertains to them viewing (not responding to) public content, that seems to be worth it.
bensecure 2y ago
> In that case "make your profile private if you don't want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable. If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.