Also, I am not sure that the Apple terms are saying that users have to be able to block - it seems like it is saying that the platform must be able to reliably ban users from the service
The Google terms seem pretty clear though - it is obviously talking about a user facing system
I honestly don’t think he finds it toxic.
Dude was obviously spending every waking moment that he was not on twitter on 4chan for the last 15 years. When he says that within his culture calling someone a pedo is just a common insult? He is saying that 4chan culture is his culture.
He thinks things are going great and everybody else is just being a bunch of babies
Oh, I agree, and also don’t think he understands that just because he thinks it isn’t toxic doesn’t mean everyone else will. I really doubt he has any actual ability to imagine things from anyone else’s perspective.
That’s how I read the Apple terms too.
I don’t think the Google terms are as clear as you say though. What, exactly, is “block”? It could be argued that the Twitter mute fits this term. It probably does, since Twitch is getting the equivalent of the (old) Twitter block soon, and it’s been OK on the store so far.
Oh, agreed, still ill defined. I was just talking about user facing vs maybe for the platform
There is.
Apple also doesn’t allow apps with single letter names. Clearly Apple is willing to make concessions for Twitter.
If you want to put it in Twitter terms, that’s mute. Block would mean they can’t see your posts either.
Click a user’s avatar and go to their public profile. Click ‘normal’ and the dropdown menu ficuswhisperer illustrates appears. Select how long U want to ignore them, et voilà
I actually agree with Elon Musk on this one. If I mute someone that I do not like, I am exercising my right not to listen to them. A real right. If I block someone that I do not like, I am impairing their right to listen to me. I do not think that I should be able to do that. My public posts are for the public, and ought not to be exclusionary. Say that a public official announces a state of emergency, and that all within a certain area must either flee their homes or shelter in place or some other action. Blocked people do not get that message. I greatly prefer to mute those that I despise, that way they still get to listen to me, but I do not have to endure them.
Repeat after me: A private company / person can limit your rights on their property.
I agree that a PUBLIC OFFICIAL shouldn’t be able to block. That is a real impact on rights. The average person though? Nope. It’s a safety feature for them. Think of it as a more easily obtained restraining order.
If you mean a public agency like FEMA, then they shouldn’t be able to Block anyone as a matter of their own organisation’s policy. That’s likely already the case.
That’s not a real right when it comes to individuals.
Also public and governmental agencies should not be using Twitter as their means of communication - we should only use actual reliable methods of communicating public and emergency information. Social networks are not for this
I don’t. A public official should be able to block abusive people. They should block Nazis too.
Also the point about mass communication is a non sequitur. Twitter is and always was a little circle jerk. It’s not the town square, it’s not the countries notice board. It has nothing to do with free speech. It has never offered it let alone protected it. I’ve never looked at their terms of service but I assume, like everywhere else, they reserve the right to block/mute/delete you for any fucking reason.
That’s all they offer. All they ever offered. Just at one point they tried to tread a fine line of not supporting the most abusive, racist, transphobic, sexist, and Nazis to get as revenue. Then they stopped that while continuing to discriminate against some users.
All they offer is terms of service, not freedom of anything.
You don’t actually believe there’s any kind of equivalency there though, do you?
Ever heard of privacy? Not everything we say has to be available to everyone. Communication involves consent.
SCOTUS is getting rid of that, so don’t worry! /s
Bullshit.
No individual is ‘owed’ anyone else’s attention.
By the same token, the right of privacy means that not everyone is entitled to see/hear everyone else’s communication.
Why should anyone have an inalienable right to listen to anyone else on a privately owned and operated platform?
Why shouldn’t users have options to create additional barriers for abusers and stalkers?
Because that would impede the ability of those abusers and stalkers to easily harass their victims, obviously.
