You’ve clearly never been a stalking victim.
16 Likes
Just like oxygen; privacy and personal safety ‘don’t matter’… until you’re not getting any.
18 Likes
You do that every time you send a direct message. If it’s ok to only send to the people you want, it’s ok to not send to the people you don’t want.
14 Likes
When I was a government official there were several such instances. One where the guy threatened us with a tire iron during a site visit to his business was especially memorable.
But most were abusive language and verbal threats. I remember that same guy calling the boss a f##ggo##. He was gay. And he also was a huge former college football player. That didn’t work very well.
16 Likes
Didn’t this happen to AOC? Someone following/responding to her on Twitter was clearly toxic, but it was the account that she uses as a US Rep. & the court said she had to unblock it. (This was before Musk’s takeover)
6 Likes
15 Likes
Or better yet, no official business should be communicated via private communication channels.
9 Likes
… by definition, anybody can see “public posts” with a web browser, without logging into an app
9 Likes
That brings us back to Zuckerberg’s* greatest fear: that the big social media platforms might be treated like (and regulated like) utility companies.
[* I’d have said Musk, but I’m not sure whether he’s considered, let alone cares about, the issue.]
6 Likes
What are you referring to exactly?
4 Likes
No, you’re not. As others have mentioned, there is no such right. In fact, there are eavesdropping laws against people listening in to your conversation when you don’t want them to. The US government feels so strongly about it that there is a federal prohibition on electronic eavesdropping:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart-A/section-15.9
Because Xitter is a private company offering a service, they may decide that one cannot block other users, but that does not confer a right to hear what others say, and it doesn’t require anyone to remain on the platform if they decide they don’t like that they can’t limit who sees their posts — such as, say, an employer, or an abusive ex, or that neighbor you never liked.
Most social media companies understand this and make blocking and muting available to their users. For some reason, the muskrat doesn’t understand this simple concept from Social Media 101.
8 Likes
Musk said he wanted to defeat spam bots, which had always existed on Twitter but weren’t a major factor in the day-to-day experience of most users. Yet they are a big thing in Musk’s experience, because he has more than 100 million followers, and every single thing he posts on the platform results in a mob scene in both the replies and quotes of his posts. So Musk has taken up a number of initiatives that he says are aimed at combating bots, including the launch of his paid verification system. (You may ignore the reality that porn bots have run freshly rampant for many users since Musk’s acquisition.)
In the same vein, Musk gets blocked a lot, and he has determined blocking is bad. Musk will never have a bad day on the internet because he couldn’t prevent people from calling him a slur, but he might have a terrible day on the internet if he gets the idea that he’s not able to reach as many people as he wants to with whatever he says
7 Likes
I like how this can also be interpreted as saying that his fortune is based on his flailing around and ruining his reputation. 
The friend I’m staying with this week shares Fef’s notion - that Musk is intentionally destroying Twitter’s function as a platform for organizing and all the other good purposes it fulfilled. You’re right, he could have done it more subtly, but I guess I’m left feeling kind of on the fence on whether he is intentionally doing it or not.
Which, it doesn’t really matter. Boils down to, is he a bumbling idiot born into wealth and privilege, or is he an evil bumbling idiot born into wealth and privilege?
11 Likes
Thing is, he could have done it less subtly. He owns the off switch
This is flailing, nothing more.
8 Likes
10 Likes
They wrote: “I once had a stalker who sent me unhinged messages on a bunch of platforms, where I blocked him. But Reddit didn’t allow blocking. I could mute him, but that just made his messages invisible to me. And sometimes he was like, ‘I’m coming to find you,’ so I couldn’t afford that.”
Reporter
“This is why blocking is important,” the user added. “Revoking access to you from terrifying people is really important. I know it’s not perfect of course, but at scale, even little things are effective. I can’t afford the level of security Elon has. If I did, then I probably would care less!”
9 Likes
The idea that because Apple conceded on an inconsequential rule about app name length they’ll therefore concede on the rules meant to protect user safety.
1 Like
Who knows? It’s their platform, their rules. They have denied far less, and allowed far worse.
2 Likes
8 Likes
