Yes, In Theory, Elon Could Be Cooking Up Something Better Than Blocks, But In Reality…
from the pigs-could-fly dept
You might have heard late last week or over the weekend, that Elon was getting rid of the “block” feature on exTwitter. Elon had tweeted on Friday claiming “Block is going to be deleted as a “feature”, except for DMs.”
But, uh, he had said basically the same thing back in June. I know this because I wrote about it back then. For whatever reason, the mainstream media finally picked up on it this weekend and there were dozens of news stories all about how Elon was going to get rid of the block feature. For his part, Elon loved every minute of it, agreeing with a user who pointed out he was getting free publicity for it:
Amusingly, the Community Notes program, which Elon loves, pointed out that both the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store say that social media apps are required to have a block function, suggesting that if he did actually get rid of block, he might run into a spot of trouble.
Apple’s developer guidelines note that any service that hosts user-generated content is required to include “the ability to block abusive users from the service,” but I’m not sure that applies here. From the context, it looks like it applies only to the ability of the service provider to block users, not other users. The Google Play guidelines are more direct and say that you need to “provide an in-app system for blocking UGC and users,” so he might run into trouble there.
That said, it was also amusing that when a Musk stan highlighted the Community Note again as a way of showing how great Elon was that he’d even allow Community Notes to be used to correct him, Musk responded by claiming that the Community Note was wrong and had already been voted to get taken off his tweet. But not only did that not appear to be the case (the note is still there as I type this), a new note now appeared on Elon’s response claiming that the old note was gone. It’s going inception style at this point:
Anyway, even some of Musk’s biggest fans aren’t happy about this. I mean, this account (who has been whining about Musk a lot lately, even though he used to be a stan):
And then there’s this guy, who Musk regularly retweets and responds to:
Even Fox News highlighted how a bunch of Musk’s biggest fans on the platform are pretty pissed off about this whole idea.
When yet another culture war grifter whined to Musk about it, Musk promised that exTwitter was actually working on something “better” instead of blocks:
exTwitter pretend CEO Linda Yaccarino got in on the act as well responding to, of all people, Monica Lewinsky’s concerns about the removal of the “block feature.” Yaccarino also claims that the company is working on “something better.”
So… here’s the question: could Elon and exTwitter come up with a better solution for dealing with extreme harassment, stalkers, etc. than the traditional “block” feature? I might surprise people by saying it’s possible. But it seems extremely unlikely.
The positive case for Musk here though, is that social media is constantly changing. Contrary to what the media and politicians will tell you, social media is not set in stone and is incredibly dynamic, where things change all the time, and trends can take off in ways that no one expected.
So, it’s theoretically possible that there’s a better option that the brute force “block” feature.
And, maybe Elon could figure out what it is.
But… I find that highly unlikely. In other tweets, Elon has suggested that muting is a better option than blocks anyway. When Jack Dorsey responded to Elon’s tweet about getting rid of blocks, agreeing with it and saying “mute only,” Elon responded “Jack understands.”
So, if the “something better” is built around… enhanced mute over block, then I am extremely skeptical that it will actually be better. Mute and block serve two different functions. There can be some overlap in that Venn diagram, but thinking that one totally outweighs the other is… kinda clueless.
One constant that has been shown throughout his time as Supreme Leader of exTwitter is that Elon has neither the deep knowledge, nor the curiosity, to understand the lived experience of anyone else on exTwitter. To use some language he might understand, in Elon’s world, everyone else is an NPC, and thus stalking, harassment, etc., don’t much matter when they happen between NPCs. The only time anything matters is when the problem impacts himself directly.
And, building out strong trust & safety tooling takes an astounding level of empathy. And Elon has never shown himself to be empathetic to anyone else’s lived experience.
So, look, I’m wiling to keep an open mind. Maybe there is a tool/feature that is better than blocking. It would be nice if there were, because blocking itself does work in some cases, but in plenty of others perhaps better tools could make a real difference.
It’s just that you’ll have to forgive me when I say it’s difficult to believe that Elon or his team of mercenaries are the ones likely to figure it out.
Filed Under: abuse, blocks, elon musk, harassment, social media blocks, stalkers
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “Yes, In Theory, Elon Could Be Cooking Up Something Better Than Blocks, But In Reality…”
DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT.
Re:
Wasn’t that what the blue checkmark was for?
He probably heard from the few remaining advertisers that all their promoted “X”-crements were getting their whole account blocked by thousands of users.
Stupid question from someone who doesn’t use ExTwitter: if you block someone, can that person still reply to your tweet and have the reply visible to others who haven’t blocked that person? If not, I think blocking is overzealous because it allows people to shut down open discussion, creating an echo chamber. And in fact it could be used by trolls / harassers to block people from calling them out.
Re:
The problem is that the worst people will always derail and/or hijack discussions unless people can block them. You can’t have an open discussion unless you have the ability to kick those disruptive elements out. See Poppers paradox.
Those people aren’t interested in an open discussion to begin with plus the fact they are already prone to circle jerking among themselves so they don’t really care if someone calls them out. Just ask yourself this: Have you ever run across a troll or harasser that actually buggered off when told?
Re: Re:
The problem is that the OP in a thread isn’t a neutral arbiter. The OP has a vested interest in pushing his/her opinion and blocking people who disagree. Some people are noble enough to not act on that interest but others aren’t.
Perhaps it should be possible for the broader community to “vote people off the island”. Perhaps the worst people should be banned from the entire platform. Or perhaps blocked people should be able to reply but their replies should be collapsed and marked accordingly so the community can see if the blocking feature is being abused.
I’m not sure what the right approach is. Maybe it really is blocking the way it was on Twitter. But it does seem that approach has big problems.
Re: Re: Re:
That is a problem how?
Re: Re: Re:2
“It means I can’t be heard if someone doesn’t want to hear what I have to say!” — that AC, probably
Re: Re: Re:2 Good Block/Bad Block
Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution for discerning one block from the other, except by humans reading it. AI is still not that good. (Or we’d be seeing it all over in different chat sites)
Re: Re: Re:
(same poster as above)
I think one possible point of contention here is who owns the thread below someone’s post. If the OP owns it then the OP should be able to curate replies. I think the entire community owns it so it doesn’t really make sense for the OP to restrict who posts beyond who is allowed in the broader community.
For example if a thin-skinned wannabe dictator posts something inflammatory, the broader community absolutely has the right to comment on it. The natural way to comment is by replying. Critical replies are important to open discourse so that thin-skinned wannabe dictator shouldn’t be able to block people from posting (constitutional considerations notwithstanding).
Re: Re: Re:2
The user who posts a given tweet should be the only person who gets to decide who can reply to that tweet. And that logic applies to Masto, Threads, or any other social media service that works like Twitter. If you think you have a good enough reason to force someone to leave their replies open—especially if that someone regularly restricts who can reply to their posts because they face routine harassment—I’d sure as shit love to hear it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, I’m not very familiar with this kind of social media. After thinking about it for a bit, I guess since the posts are replies directed back at the OP, you are right: the OP should be able to control who replies to him/her.
However, there is a separate concept of overall discourse about a post. On Twitter much of that discourse is in replies but it’s also in retweets, replies to those retweets, posts linking to a post, etc. It’s not clear to me why “the thread below a post” consists of replies to the OP and not the broader discourse originating from a post. In the latter case, the OP would not be able to curate “the thread below a post”. Is there a justification for the former over the latter?
—
Separately,
Re: Re: Re:4
I think you’re mistaking the idea that because an app could be used as a public bullhorn, it must be used as a public bullhorn. Some people want the views, the likes, the retweets. Some want to vent their thoughts and just see who responds and strike up conversation at their pleasure. Some have found those they want to converse with and use the post function to talk to them specifically.
You can open your house to anyone and everyone if you like. Oftentimes that becomes a reminder why you put locks on in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:4
And if we were talking about discourse in general, you might have something approaching the semblance of a point. But we’re not. So you don’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
Okay, I’m not very familiar with this kind of social media
Then shut up.
Re: Re: Re:
All your suggestions have been tried and won’t work.
Aside from that why it is so important that people must be forced to read what others write?
Because that is what you are demanding. Not that people can be kept from responding but must be forced to read what others are saying. You are demanding a hecklers veto based on the idea that there are people out there who are so thin skinned that they can’t take criticism and must be forced to read this criticism. And in doing so completely ignore the legitimate need to keep out harassers and other scum that would gleefully make use of your demanded hecklers veto to chase their victims from the internet.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t think anyone should be forced to read anything. One alternative is muting, which would allow the OP to ignore harassers. How is that forcing the OP to read?
On the other hand, should I have been able to ban you from replying to my post above? No because open discourse is a virtue on this forum and I shouldn’t be able to post stupid shit and then shut down the discussion. Who can reply is not up to me but to Mike and those he delegates that power to.
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, about your second point. Now imagine if the replies to your posts were filled with:
-insults towards you
-outright lies
-pornography
-incitement of violence
-any other horrific content.
Some of this might be against the TOS, some of it – not. Do you want to rely on the platform to keep your replies from turning into something you don’t like? Do you want to wait for the moderation team to respond? You realize that sending a report takes way more time that simply blocking? And even if the platform decides to take action, the unwanted content will stay in your replies until the decision is made. Do you want your readers to have their perception of your speech affected by the garbage?
On the other hand, if you post garbage, you’ll be muted or blocked and so the discourse will continue without your deemed-unworthy input.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
This is the crux of it. If they are truly replies then I suppose you should be able to limit who posts them. But you shouldn’t be able to control the discussion and I don’t see why you should necessarily be able to control what posts other people see under your posts, which currently happen to be replies but in general it could be an open forum discussion. In the case of open discussion, it isn’t your discussion and you should have no more say than anyone else. And if you don’t want to see porn / lies / whatever then you could hide them from your view. What you couldn’t do is hide them from others’ view and I don’t see any good reason why a person should prevent two other people from communicating.
Re: Re: Re:5
Shut the fuck up. Imagine if every place you went in the ohysical world, a mob of the stupidest people alive followed you, butted into your speeches and convos, and generally were just the worst, to the point where the peoole who wanted to hear you, couldn’t, and bystanders stsrt to believe you deserve the harassment for the obviously awful thing you must have done to cause that.
You don’thave to imagine. For women and visible queers, this is what they face online, you fucking sealion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Ironic that you’re the one using insulting language. And did you just assume my gender???
Re: Re: Re:6
Normally I would have flagged a comment that started out like that but given who you’re replying to and the argument they’ve been presenting ‘good for the goose, good for the gander’ seems appropriate here.
Re: Re: Re:5
If someone wants to have a discussion about your speech and you tell them “not in my replies”, you’re not controlling the discussion—you’re controlling whether it happens in your replies (and that includes keeping out trolls and other bullshit). Someone can go have that discussion on their timeline and in their replies if they want. You don’t have an obligation to host a conversation that you don’t want to host. And that applies to everyone on Twitter.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s the thing, your posts form what’s technically called a “micro-blog”, it is your discussion, it’s not an open forum. Some people even prefer to turn off the replies completely. At the same time, multiple people can post about the same issue, you don’t own it, in fact this is how Xitter works – it generates these particle-field like reactions to anything and everything.
Re: Re: Re:5
Blocking does not prevent communication between anyone other that the blocker and the person that they block.
Re: Re: Re:3
Do you think that you should be able to choose who can see your posts on Twitter?
If you think that’s unreasonable, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if people who do have that expectation of privacy decide they don’t want to use Twitter anymore.
Re: Re: Re:4
Certainly not. Public posts on Twitter aren’t private. Until recently, all that someone you blocked had to do to view it was log out. And people can screenshot, retweet, or otherwise disseminate your post.
Re: Re: Re:5
And as I said, don’t be surprised if some people, especially high-profile people, leave Twitter because they cannot control who sees their Tweets.
It hasn’t even been a year since Elon banned the ElonJet account because he claimed he was being stalked.
Re: Re: Re:
By objecting to blocking you are objecting to people refusing to speak or listen to you. That does not stop you saying what you want to say, except when you want to target specific people. Not allowing blocking amounts to forced association, which ignore the rights of others, that is your right to free speech does not include the right to force others to listen or speak to you
Re:
What you call an “echo chamber” is, whether you like it or not, a curated online environment. Think of this way: You wouldn’t invite everyone into your living room, and if someone took a shit on your living room floor, you’d probably kick them out. For what reason should we not do that with our online “living rooms”?
Re:
Removing blocking, though, allows the bad actors to enforce a heckler’s veto on open discussion of your post by flooding the thread with their own posts. Without block, you can only have open discussion on posts the worst elements on the platform agree with, not any that they disagree with.
Note that your blocking a user doesn’t prevent them from having a discussion about their posts. Your block doesn’t impact their posts at all, only their blocks do. So blocking doesn’t limit discussion in any way, it just requires them to have their discussions on their own threads if they’re so problematic that most other posters have blocked them. That also means that the trolls/harassers can’t block anyone from calling them out, it just means anyone calling them out has to do it in their own posts (which they probably would anyway, since they’ve probably blocked the trolls/harassers to get shut of the crap said trolls/harassers are spewing).
Re:
Block works that way because stalkers and harassers can continue to stalk and harass people if they can still read and reply to their tweets. For example, asking others to relay their message to the person they blocked. Totally innocent people can read it, be duped into thinking the block was a mistake, and then tweet/DM the victim to let them know what the reply said. That keeps the harassment going, instead of it stopping. Mute will not solve this problem. You need those types to not know if their target is even tweeting any more, so they can’t do anything to harass them further.
You also don’t want stalkers being able to see their target’s tweets, because they may be able to use those to track them down in the real world. (Which can result in attacks, even murders.) Sure, a person can set their profile so that only people they follow can see their tweets, but then they’re sacrificing communicating with others just to keep a stalker away. That’s further victimization and something we can avoid by having blocking available to victims.
Blocking’s not about shutting down discussion and never has been, it’s about shutting down harassment and abuse.
Re: Re:
Look, a stalker could, before Elon, just log out (or go to private mode) to see tweets. Even today, you can search for tweets from a particular user with a search engine. Creating a second account also isn’t all that difficult. If you have a stalker you need to not be posting stuff in your own name on the open Internet that you don’t want your stalker to see – blocking them will NOT stop them from seeing it unless they’re particularly lazy. If people are seriously trying to rely on the block feature to not get attacked or murdered, then it’s better he removes it so they don’t have a false sense of security, because it could never do that. You can make an argument for block, but this isn’t one.
I have been blocked for single replies of the most mundane nature. You can say it’s not about shutting down discussion, but it often is.
Sometimes someone blocks me after a few replies to me on a long thread and now I can’t even see the context of my own posts when someone else replies. That’s annoying.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh noes, minor annoyance and/or inconvenience, truly the block feature must be axed post-haste so such a heinous fate doesn’t fall upon you or anyone else in the future.
Re: Re: Re:
That is a selfish reason for requiring other people to put up with harassment, especially as they will have blocked you because you are annoying them.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not requiring anyone to put up with harassment. If mute remains they don’t have to see me. There’s no good justification for not allowing someone to see a public tweet.
Re: Re: Re:3
AFAIK, blocking does not delete the tweet, it just removes it from the blocking persons feed, and you can repost from your view of twitter if required.
Re: Re: Re:3
Other than the fact that they’ve made clear they don’t want you involved in the conversation via blocking you?
Re: Re: Re:4
What if I’m the one who initiated the conversation? What if they reply to a bunch of my tweets and then block me? I don’t see how preventing me from seeing the replies to my own tweet helps anyone.
Re: Re: Re:4
… Do you think Techdirt should provide this functionality? They currently don’t, after all. Should I have been able to block you after your first reply to me so you wouldn’t have been able to make this one?
(I wouldn’t do so, but this is what you’re arguing people should be able to do.)
Re: Re: Re:3
Just because a tweet starts out as publicly available doesn’t mean the public has any right to always have access to it. That’s just not how any of this works.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, I don’t have a right to force Twitter to keep tweets up forever, or to make them available to me at all. This is about policy, not rights. They don’t need any justification whatsoever if tomorrow they decided that anyone whose username started with a vowel would be unable to view posts from anyone whose username started with a consonant. But I would still call it dumb.
I’m saying that “visible to everyone on the planet except THAT guy” is dumb and keeps nobody safe if “that guy” can still see it by using other methods. “Someone blocked you, so now you can’t see this post which you’ve obviously already seen because you replied to it earlier” is also dumb, and keeps nobody safe.
Re:
Trolls/harassers don’t generally try to prevent others from seeing what they say and replying to it, which is what blocking does. Harassers would generally want their victim to see what they say, whether the victim wants to or not.
I don’t use Twitter much, but almost every account I have blocked was due to it being a “parody” account created to impersonate their target to attack their reputation, or to otherwise attack, harass, and intimidate their target. Most of those were part of a years-long, ongoing campaign of harassment against an author.
They can go have “open discussion” in their own replies or someone else’s. They don’t need me to be forced to give them a forum. And mute is nowhere near enough.
Elon
I like what Musk has done up until now – I like my Tesla, and he should launch a lot of rockets too. But I think he assumed (!!) that herding cranky anonymous humans was as easy as building thngs. Now he’s lurching from impulse to impulse trying to find solutions that just aren’t there.
There’s no easy solution to the fact that if you give people anonymity, some will be assholes. If you want to control that, AI is still not up to the task. It takes humans – if you lay them all off, the excrement will pile up post by post.
Re:
Point of order:
Taking away anonymity does not fix the asshole problem. It’s been tried, and it turns out that assholes were still assholes. Just look at Facebook trolling and harassment, where “anonymity” is not really a thing.
Taking away anonymity where it used to exist thus only serves to remove a defensive shield for those the assholes wish to harass.
Re: Re:
Eliminating anonymity makes it much harder to hold politicians to account by making it easier for them to bring a SLAPP suite.
What are the odds that musk decided on this after taking a break from searching for his own name and found out he was already blocked by some celebrity he wanted to creep on? Because blocking is a very simple concept that makes obvious sense — you block somebody when you don’t want to see their shit and and you don’t want them to see your shit. What possible improvement could be made to something so simple?
Also, how many “number one priorities” does exTwitter have at this point, according to the “CEO”? It’s at least two after the latest story about trying to placate advertisers with the reach controls.
Extreme Super Mute!
My bet is that Twixxer eventually rolls out an enhanced Mute with a bazillion confusing options that in the correct combination functions identically to the existing Block.
Followed immediately by a flood of browser extensions to autoset those options and put one-click blocking right back where it was
'You're listening to me whether you like it or not.'
Sadly it makes perfect sense that someone utterly incapable of comprehending the idea that anyone would ever not want to listen to him and/or his friends would think it’s a great idea to remove the ability to do so.
Fundamentally, the block feature as is does 3 things:
-removes posts by blocked users from algorithmic and search feeds
-prevents them from replying to you posts or sending DMs
-prevents them from reading your posts
Any “improvement” should either subtract from that or add to it.
Now that viewing Xitter requires logging in, continuing to stalk someone requires a second account. Further enhancing this situation would involve global settings for account visibility, some of which Xitter already has.
If i had to guess what Xitter would do, they would subtract from the current function in some way, probably by allowing reading the posts. Alternatively, they could remove the option to block accounts that run an ad campaign… And then cash on every grifter who’s monetized their Xeets in one way of another returning some of that money for being unblockable.
They need more content to serve, they need more interaction and they need more money.
In short, i can’t think of an improvement to the block feature that wouldn’t involve altering other features on the platform.
Elmo went on to block catturd and then mock him talking about how did he like that medicine.
Dude controls the platform and a majority of his followers are fake… sort of sums up the Elmo plans… Announce it, get coverage, then very quietly back away and let his fanbois scream at anyone who dares ask why he hasn;t done the thing yet.
But then the first 4 pages of my blocks are meet hot girl now bots all using the same wording and url in their bios & somehow mr i will end the bots can’t run grep.
Loomitic and the other “shock jocks” are bitching about their payouts being tiny & it being an evil evil plot…
Then it came out that advertisers can now selected exactly how much crazy they are willing to allow their ads to appear next to….
FSCK MODERATION!!!!!!!
Re:
You can say “fuck” here.
Went to visiting tech dirt. Auto fill decided on Twitter instead. It 404ed..both Twitter and x.com are giving me a 404 on their own homepage.
Tested on both my isp and wireless plan.
I’m absolutely sure that there’s something better than block in works. In the meantime, could you maybe post how one would trademark something like xBlock or xNuke so it will hold up in court when used in the context of social networks or microblogging? asking for a friend.
From reading somebody’s statements on the Block feature code, its apparently the shittiest designed code in existence.
“Their blocking software is terribly inefficient, resulting in an additional server query for the timeline tumbler… on each refresh… for every blocked account.”
Re:
If ten people are fulltime to keep the block “feature” working, it’s already a good reason to remove it, and fire ten more people. This also apply to computing time wasted for theses complexe features.
It’s not ideological decision, just a cold and hard financial stand, because X still needs X billions dollars before it gets erased for good.
Xcrement gonna Xcrement
Probably not fair to say that Elon can’t empathize with others lived experiences. Just like every other reply-guy douche, toxic shitstick culture warrior and harasser on the website, he probably feels very, very sad when he and his acolytes can’t force horrible content that he enjoys on others. They get off on forcing their “free speech” on others.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the replacement will only benefit blue checks, and everyone else will be left twisting.
Re:
It’s more than fair to say, given that he can’t seem to think of how blocking people on social media might be useful to some people.
Even if possibly real, the idea of getting rid of block (or any feature y) before rolling out the “enhanced mute” (or any replacement feature z) is a really stupid no good utterly bad and you should feel bad idea. Also, this is not how production environments operate, anywhere sensible.
This is so universally derided, I am expecting Musk to toss Linda under the bus and blame the entire plan on her.
Even if the very first time she heard of it was his tweet.
Honestly, knowing Musk it’s more likely that he’s mad that people can actually block/mute him, floated this as a thought bubble, realized nobody else thinks it’s a good idea, and decided to desperately pivot by saying “we’ll replace it with something better!” While trying to come up with an idea that he can claim is “better” while still achieving his original objective.
Re:
At this point it would not surprise me if the ‘better’ option turned out to be ‘If you want to block other users you’d better be paying that $8/month, otherwise have fun dealing with no ability to prevent people from posting on your account.’
Re: Re:
Well, in theory, since “Twitter” apps became “X” apps in few days (depending how much people update their apps frequently), making them “X Pro” apps would easy. When you pay hundreds for a phone, you can spare some dimes for a “certified” account. And now you’re a “Pro”, you can block as you used to be. Or using another service, since you don’t pay, nobody will regret you.
James woods?
How did the article miss the Twitter spat with James Woods, which ended with Musk BLOCKING Woods!
Re:
Elon: Okay, blocking as a feature will be removed from every account except mine!
Yes, in theory Elon Musk could be a benevolent, innovative genius who helps usher the planet into a new era of technological wonders. In reality, he’s still just another manipulative grifter on the verge of his big crash and burn.
off topic, but X.com ... FFS that is/was a bad idea!
Am I the only one who keeps seeing this stuff and thinking “X.com, why is everyone talking about porn?”
Ohh, right … world’s dumbest re-brand
But, butt, Elmo is so smart
Of course, he is also the putz that calls us humans and can only pretend to be one.
Think back on Mike’s 1st Amend reaction to Muck doing his poll re Is Twitter 1st A … something or other. He didn’t get it then. He made up his mind, such as it is, and as a typical narcissist he cannot fathom others not loving his solutions because he knows he’s the smartest man in any room. And he blew ~$24B* to prove it.
In Tesla, and Space X he has a decent number of actual engineers with pertinent expertise. This is the problem with SW. Every dick that types thinks he can code. Elmo either drove out or fired the web expertise crew. Now he’s surrounded by sycophants, and fans that believe somehow X-Twitter is going to be worth hundreds of billions. ‘Cause Elmo told them so.
Note * Whether he blew the entire $44B is still out for judgement, and interest payments.