You're viewing a single thread.
Block makes sense. He knows it makes no sense to remove it. Block has existed on the internet long enough to assume this is completely malicious intent.
Like I flatout refuse to assume he removed a feature used literally everywhere else without ulterior motive. This is just to allow for bad actors to continue to voice themselves without any prevention tools.
Yeah, it's literally "You're going to be forced to consume content you don't want to" and "People wil now be able to harass you publicly."
You can mute people you don't want to see posts from instead.
Why isn't the mute function enough?
I actually never understood why the block function existed, it clearly told the account you blocked that you have blocked them, prompting them to create an alt.
Mute is like shadowban, you won't ever see them and they believe that you can see them.
Blocking stops the assholes from interacting with your own tweets entirely. Sure, they can make an alt to get around that, but that's more work for them. Blocking is simple and quick.
Mute was never good enough because it still allowed assholes to interact with your tweets.
Source: Queer lady that had to block people in order to Twitter to not be trash before Elon bought it.
Interact how? You will never see anything they do.
Doesn't matter if you can't see it; what matters if if THEY can interact with a tweet. That's why the block and mute features are different and why block is superior.
Abusers on Twitter love getting around being muted by interacting with their victims tweets, and finding ways to make their victim see what they're doing. It's why the block feature was implemented in the first place.
Can the abuser find ways around being blocked? Sure, but it requires more work on their part, and most don't bother going that far. But for their victims, blocking is quick and easy.
And from reading some of the responses in this thread, it's obvious to me that some of you never had to deal with being harassed on Twitter; the block feature is absolutely vital. Without it, Twitter is 100% done for. (Though one could argue it's ruined already, cause Musk, but whatever).
Everyone says muted accounts can "interact" with ones tweets but no one can inform me in what way.
How can muted accounts make so that you see what their doing?
How can muted accounts make so that you see what their doing?
By encouraging fellow trolls/assholes to quote, reply and retweet your tweets so you're forced to see them. Also, someone that is muted can still personally reply, quote and retweet your tweets as well; you just won't see it, not unless they find a way around it (as I already described how). Toxic assholes always find away around mute features because it's garbage and isn't useful at all.
If you still can't figure out why removing the block feature will be devastating for a significant portion of Twitters user-base, than you're either acting in bad faith, obtuse, or one of the very toxic assholes that will be thrilled to see blocking removed.
Edit: Oh and one final thing; Lemmy has a block feature. Anymore ridiculous responses from you will result in just that. I can't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore.
Doesn’t mute allow them to see your posts still?
Why does that matter at all?
Because maybe you don’t want someone to see your posts on their feed?
Because maybe victims don't want their harassers seeing or interacting with their tweets at all????????????
Why does it matter if a harasser sees your tweets? How can they interact with the tweets when muted?
How can they interact with the tweets when muted?
By replying, quoting and retweeting. However, if they're blocked, they can't do that without putting extra effort (such as making an alt account).
Why does it matter if a harasser sees your tweets?
Are you being serious or are you really just that obtuse? It's so damn painfully obvious you've never been seriously harassed on social media.