With that kind of decisions, always assume that there is a hidden agenda.
In that case, i could imagine for example that this can be something done to ease a further AI feature. it is almost impossible to train an AI for content with individual customization. So if Y is blocked to see your content, that is impossible to have AI trained on your tweets and still be sure that Y can't get the content of your tweets.
If the previous Elon/X rumors are true(a big if, perhaps), I feel like the hidden agenda here is more likely that someone blocked Musk and Musk is upset that he can no longer see the posts.
It's quite foolish to assume that they couldn't quietly code up a "God mode" for Elon's account, or assume that isn't already in place, and instead had to create a feature to roll out to 350M users where Elon had an account no different than the unwashed masses.
It's his site, they would code up whatever he asked, X is no longer design by committee. Remember when the Reddit CEO/owner/whatever was hand editing the database to alter users' comments to make it look like they posted something they hadn't?
> With that kind of decisions, always assume that there is a hidden agenda
What kind of decisions? Why?
The motivation seems simple: increase engagement by broadening the amount of content someone can see / be shown.
Honestly I don't think that the few "blocked" tweets where you still can't interact with is making a real difference in term of ad monetizable engagement.
You will see what will come next and it will be clear.
If not for AI indexation, another hypothesis is something like removing the paywall needing an account to access user content or something like that.
I'm not on Twitter but in its current form, wouldn't a blocked user be able to see the blocker's posts just by using an incognito window or logging in as a different account?
Yes. It's always been a stupid, petulant implementation, and its widespread acceptance is confusing.
The point of blocking is to prevent harassment, no? Hiding the blocker's posts from the blockee puts up an additional barrier to interaction. Even if it can be circumvented, it still requires some effort and may dissuade the person from continuing the harassment. There is a reason why this is the standard implementation for almost every social media site, and petulance has nothing to do with it.
I just wish they would let me see anyone's posts [without logging in].
We regret to have to inform you that you are not part of the free speech in-group.
Musk is right on this one. It wasn’t serving any real purpose to let me selectively block other people from _seeing_ my posts (but _interacting_ does make sense).
If I genuinely don’t want someone to see my posts, I just can’t put it on Twitter/X unless I have a private profile (is that still a thing?).
Otherwise, it’s a public platform, in that anyone can register with little more than an email address and see my posts. Claiming to block someone from seeing them seems like it provides a false sense of security to users.
Twitter itself recognized there are levels of public early on. The original site was every post in one timeline.
The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. The phrase context collapse came about and persists for a reason. A blocked person has been kicked out of the public local to the poster and their followers. It doesn't make sense for them to be able to continue to act like they're in the space, but just not speaking.
The fact that someone can violate the rules and norms of a space doesn't mean you don't have rules and norms.
I agree if getting a seat at the table requires some vetting, but if something is being shouted publicly into a megaphone your analogy doesn't work. If something is so public that a logged out user can see it, it's weird of a logged in account to not see it.
"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.
> The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event.
But that's not what Twitter/X is, it's more akin to standing in an open access field with a megaphone. You have no right to say who should be in the field or not, and if you don't want someone to hear something, the best thing to do is not say it in the field in the first place.
It's bad UX. Telling people that blocked users can't see your posts mislead them, because all that's needed for as blocked user is to open a window in incognito mode.
Good user interfaces don't tell users things that are far from true. Even if we all wish the things could be true.
Not being able to see someone else’s tweets until you made a different account was always security theatre.
How can I keep Musk's posts from showing up in my feed if blocking doesn't hide them?
I think that's the real motivation, actually.
The change here is that blocking Musk no longer makes it so _he_ can’t see _your_ posts while he’s logged in.
[dead]
how many years did this take?
Good. They can see them anyways by logging out. I can understand blocking their ability to post on your post but I think they should be able to see your posts and quote them on their own profile.
That should be OK so long as they don't get to respond to those posts or link to them, and that should include posts they are referenced in or embedded in.
Referenced in? That is waaaay too far. That means if the person blocked you, you essentially can't talk about them.
I can't edit the original response, but I meant you shouldn't be able to make replies to threads of their retweeted posts.
That's fantastic, Jason Calacanis blocked me, idk why, I think I said I didn't like one of the All In Podcasts and he didn't like that. But it's annoying because I like to see his posts.
Every change breaks someone's workflow ...
The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from people I dgaf in my feed was to block them.
I was even considering creating a Github repo. with all the usernames I've been selecting out for years, so that people could easily de-shittify their Twitter feed.
The set includes (excludes?):
* the most prominent accounts that post political content; no partisan bias, they're all gone for me
* most major news accounts, including anyone that regularly posts any kind of content related to any side of any war, ever
* "science influencers" where the "science" are actually ads or some deranged guy screaming while wearing a lab coat
* Ian Miles Cheong and the Krassenstein Brothers
* hundreds of e-whores
* hundreds of "I made 1 million dollars last week" accounts
* ... and many more
gg to that
You will still not see them.
If I understood correctly, the change here is that now those hundreds of e-whores and Ian Miles Cheong will be able to see your posts. So blocking is still the right strategy for what you want (for now).
> The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from people I dgaf in my feed was to block them.
Do you see people's posts even if you don't follow them?
Much of the worsening of Twitter is centered around them deciding what you should see in order to maximize outrage, engagement, revenue.
This means that in the replies to a tweet, for example, they can now rank highly all the spam and culture war bullshit that people have previously blocked.
Yes. All the time.
My "For you" page is ~95% the things described above and only ~5% things related to the accounts I follow.