Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal

Twitter, now X, to remove blocking feature

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66550959

The blocking feature will be removed for users of X, formerly Twitter, Elon Musk has announced, claiming the feature "makes no sense".

The X boss said users will still be able to block people from directly messaging them, however.

But many people on social media said it will make it hard for people to remove abusive posts from their timeline.

It is the latest in a series of changes Mr Musk has made since taking over the site in a $44bn deal last year.

Currently, when users "block" an account, it stops that account's posts from appearing in the blocker's timeline, and vice versa.

An account that is blocked can no longer send messages to the blocker, nor can it view their posts.

Former Twitter founder, Jack Dorsey, seemed to agree with Mr Musk's decision, posting: "100%. Mute only".

But there are concerns that muting an account would not be sufficient protection from cases of harassment, abuse or stalking.

The mute function currently only stops notifications about an account's posts. An account that is muted can still view the muter's posts and reply to them.

One user called Mr Musk's decision a "huge mistake", saying there are "toxic people" on the platform whom users simply did not want to interact with in any way.

Removing a blocking feature could also potentially violate the terms and conditions of stores like Apple's App Store and Google Play.

Both stores have conditions stating that social media apps should allow users facilities to filter harassment or bullying.

It could mean X is no longer downloadable from those stores.

[heero_yuy]

Norwegian blue. Beautiful plumage.

[denphone]

Another ill thought out mistake from the guy with the biggest ego from the earth to the moon.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by denphone

Another ill thought out mistake from the guy with the biggest ego from the earth to the moon.

And yet, people will bang on about it, and then continue using it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

And yet, people will bang on about it, and then continue using it.

Inertia, plus X/Twitter is still far larger than Threads or Mastodon combined.

[Chrysalis]

I have an "out there" view on message blocking.

I have noticed there is a trend to encourage passive aggression behaviour, by that I mean deciding to block someone without telling them you blocking them.

The chat services are designed to let you block someone discreetly, discord will tell the person blocked e.g. they cant send a message, but not the reason why, whatsapp if you block, the user isnt told they blocked, but instead the messages dont get delivered and they cant see when the person is online.

Ignoring someone deliberately without telling them why is a form of passive aggression and is likely easily the biggest type of passive aggression on the internet.

Now this move on twitter, as I understand it, the block will still apply on DM's (which will be where its important), but for public posts it becomes a notification mute. So you can no longer filter out posts from certain viewers, I have also seen comments saying that previously when someone was blocked they couldnt even see the account that blocked them (not sure if thats accurate).

On reddit you can filter out public posts, as well as "some" community forum software. My thoughts are the feature is already there, why not keep it there. So basically I do disagree with the decision even though I do think current invisibility/ignore features are implemented wrong on chat services.

Wouldnt surprise me if Musk is getting annoyed with people blocking his posts, as many of his decisions seem personal driven.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

And yet, people will bang on about it, and then continue using it.

I am waiting for threads to work properly in a browser, then I can see myself using that. Although I will still read tweets that interest me.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I have noticed there is a trend to encourage passive aggression behaviour, by that I mean deciding to block someone without telling them you blocking them.

I don’t understand why would anyone have to explain themselves to anyone.

Ignoring someone deliberately without telling them why is a form of passive aggression and is likely easily the biggest type of passive aggression on the internet.

I disagree with that view, if I do not want to listen to someone I don’t listen.

Is turning Nicky Campbell off on the radio because I can’t stand the sanctimonious git, passive aggressive?

If I block anyone on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn ( that’s all use) is because I’ve decided you are not worth my time. I do not need to explain my reasons.

Wouldnt surprise me if Musk is getting annoyed with people blocking his posts, as many of his decisions seem personal driven.

That’s an interesting take, and thinking on it, you may be onto something.

I am waiting for threads to work properly in a browser, then I can see myself using that. Although I will still read tweets that interest me.

Threads, if it carries on will just be an echo chamber. There have been many alternatives to Twitter none have worked because they just become left or right echo chambers.

As flawed as it is, and despite his attempts to screw it up, Twitter is still the defacto town square.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by denphone

The man is a A grade idiot.

And yet he's made more money than everyone that's posts here put together. What does that make us

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s an interesting take, and thinking on it, you may be onto something.

He is but not necessarily in the way he thinks he is, the wokerati have been blocking ads en masse since he took over, that's hitting revenue hard imho

Originally Posted by Itshim

And yet he's made more money than everyone that's posts here put together. What does that make us

Depends if you measure someone by the content of his character or the content of his wallet really, btw I'm sure plenty of people here would have done exceptionally well if their parents owned an emerald mine and were so wealthy they couldn't shut the safe doors some nights it was so full

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Itshim

And yet he's made more money than everyone that's posts here put together. What does that make us

Grade B idiots.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

He is but not necessarily in the way he thinks he is, the wokerati have been blocking ads en masse since he took over, that's hitting revenue hard imho



Depends if you measure someone by the content of his character or the content of his wallet really, btw I'm sure plenty of people here would have done exceptionally well if their parents owned an emerald mine and were so wealthy they couldn't shut the safe doors some nights it was so full

I don't think it's particularly woke to not want ones feed cluttered up where every other post is crap you haven't chosen to see.


Especially if you're using a data limited connection where you're literally using your data allowance to see it.


If it was maybe 1-2 posts per timeline refresh it would be less annoying but the only way to reduce it is to block/mute the ads you haven't followed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t understand why would anyone have to explain themselves to anyone.


I disagree with that view, if I do not want to listen to someone I don’t listen.

Is turning Nicky Campbell off on the radio because I can’t stand the sanctimonious git, passive aggressive?

If I block anyone on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn ( that’s all use) is because I’ve decided you are not worth my time. I do not need to explain my reasons.

I'm with Pierre on this.
If I block someone on a site, its my choice and requires no explanation to anyone.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Is turning Nicky Campbell off on the radio because I can’t stand the sanctimonious git, passive aggressive?

Common sense, surely.

Apple suspends ads on Twitter/X after Elon Musk endorses antisemitic post

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6...e735ffee3d81b9

Apple has paused advertising on X, formerly known as Twitter, after its owner Elon Musk endorsed an antisemitic post on the social media platform, it has been reported.

The suspension was reported by the US news website Axios and comes a day after a similar decision was made by the technology company IBM. The Times contacted both Apple and Twitter/X for comment.

The antisemitic post was published on Wednesday by a user responding to a Jewish man from Florida, US who had shared an advert encouraging people to stand up to racism.

In the advert a father can be seen confronting and then educating his son who had anonymously written “Hitler was right” on the internet.

The advert was shared under the slogan: “You got something you want to say? Why don’t you say it to our faces.

The user responded by saying Jewish people had stoked the “exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”.

They also said they did not care about the concerns of Jewish people living in the West who he claimed had welcomed “hordes of minorities” into those countries.

He said those Jews were now realising that these immigrant groups did not like Jewish people.

In response to the user, Musk said: “You have said the actual truth.”…

… Jewish groups said the sentiments expressed in the post are similar to those that underpin an antisemitic conspiracy theory, known as replacement theory, which states that Jews are organising non-white immigrants to replace white people.

It was a belief espoused by Robert Bowers before he killed 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, US in 2018.

[Chrysalis]

Musk might think he has more freedom after buying twitter, but he has less as he represents the brand now.