The âReaders added contextâ feature is the only good thing about Twitter.
Bro I love that Twitterâs fact checker is just so fuckin petty to Elon lmao
Iâm surprised he hasnât got rid of it yet. Maybe he has to have it in order to keep his few remaining advertisers?
The thing is, itâs usually long enough after his comments have had their impact that these additions are made. Itâs really his having/eating cake feature. He can say some out and out false shit, it gets picked up by his base and spread, the community mod a day or two later goes âactuallyâ, and if someone calls him out he can just say âoh but the community mod set things rightâ if he doesnât just outright ignore it.
It took a while for the note on âmakes no senseâ to show up, but that first one appeared almost immediately.
Is this legit? That isnât just ironic, but that last line is racists as hell. I mean, Iâm fairly certain heâs racist if this is real or not but that last part was just so explicit in it
I think (I hope) the last line is from a completely different post, not a reply to the black woman. Tbh I thought it must have been a reply to someone with an NFT chimp avatar. Itâs much nicer here in my naĂŻve/sheltered mind than the real world đ
Itâs a different post/thread - you can tell from the time lines with the chimp one being made in 2018. However, no idea what the context of that was, and Iâm not going to use Xitter to find out.
it has to be because if he actually blocked her she wouldnât be able to reply to his tweets anymore
deleted by creator
I think sheâs attaching his chimp comment in her reply as a way of displaying his hypocrisy.
But Iâm not sure. Iâve never used Twitter and always find the screenshots stupid to read.
I didnât use twitter before Elon bought it, and have stayed much further away since he has. Itâs possible Iâm misreading due to something like that, but if I am thatâs also poor design. It looks like a legitimate reply to hers. If users can manipulate replies in line with their tweets that just makes the site even worse
Iâm not a big Twitter user but how you know this isnât a reply; firstly the date. The chimp tweet is 7 years old, the block conversation is from 3 days ago. Secondly, you see the white vertical lines between musks first and second tweet? That indicates itâs part of the same thread. The chimp tweet doesnât have one because the woman has âquote tweetedâ something he said in the past. Finally you see how âblockedâ is in bold in his last tweet? That happens when you search for a word - it appears in bold in the results. I believe the woman went to muskâs profile and searched all his tweets for âblockedâ. Then she quote tweeted it back to him in this conversation.
This is correct on all counts, itâs a quoted tweet. What weâre seeing is the âthumbnailâ of the link. Click it and go to the post
After looking again I did notice the chimp comment is dated 2018, so I believe Iâm correct
I wrote (and then deleted) a furious comment because I thought he was responding to her directly, too. I think sheâs just retweeting an older tweet of his, though⊠which is why I deleted the furious comment.
Still, itâs not much of a stretch to imagine him actually, deliberately saying this.
Heâs a white South African whoâs daddy made his money with slave labor. Heâs definitely a racist.
Can someone ELI5 what is the âReaders added contextâ feature?
I havenât added one myself, but this is my understanding: all Twitter users can opt into the community notes feature but at first you can only rate notes as helpful or unhelpful. Once youâve rated 5 notes you have the ability to write your own. You can do so on any tweet, but if your note(s) donât get enough âhelpfulâ ratings, you lose your ability to write them. You have to go back to rating notes - once youâve rated 5 more you can write again.
When you add a note you chose a reason why youâre adding it, similar to explaining why youâre reporting a comment on lemmy. If you say that the original tweet is misleading you have to say why and provide a source. It only shows on the tweet to everyone if you get enough âhelpfulâ ratings from the people who have opted into the scheme.
Not very EILI5 but you get the jist!
Thanks, now I understand this better⊠And yeah this dude is a real jerk.
Heâs such an amazing piece of shit that he claimed âchimpâ was just local non-racial slang in totally not racist South Africa.
Wouldnât be surprised if this is just yet another genius move for introducing blocks as a paid feature.
Blocking on Twitter is not the same thing as blocking on lemmy.
Twitter has a âmuteâ feature that is equivalent to the feature lemmy has. That mute feature is staying.
Lemmy letâs you hide all of a users posts by blocking them, but that block does not prevent them from commenting for others to see. On Twitter, it did.
Why are people arguing about whether blocking on Lemmy is better or hypocritical or whatever? Iâm pretty sure this post is just about Elon being a hypocrite, and is saying absolutely nothing about Lemmy
I really donât know. But Iâve had to give multiple warnings, a temporary ban and a permanent ban already so I really hope we can just stick to enjoying musk being called out and not argue over irrelevant/nonexistent issues.
I second that.
Am I following the thread correctly in that he is calling a black girl a chimp?
No, heâs not quite that horrific (in public). A few of us discussed it in this thread.
Edit: I think I messed the link up. Try this.
No the girl is showing a screenshot of his tweet where he blocked someone, nested inside her tweet, in response to him saying that blocking makes no sense. .
Iâm kinda having hard time understanding this. Bypassing blocks in Twitter was always so trivial, essentially same as mute. Just open the profile on another account or incognito.
Official twitter app even supports multiple accounts by default.
Only way to actually prevent unwanted people from interacting with you was to make your profile private so you can approve every follower individually.
Exactly. If someone wants to see your public tweets, they will no matter how blocked they are. Itâs a mountain out of a mole hill. When account creation is free and without restriction people will abuse it.
As long as mute exists thatâs all thatâs needed.
a big reason to have block is so that you canât get quote tweeted by a much bigger account. if you block them, they canât put you on blast. even though they can circumvent the block with a different account, it wonât have as much reach.
The âif blocking is removed the app will be in violation of play store and App Store policiesâ is 100% wrong though, Iâm surprised that note hasnât been removed.
People incorrectly saw the section saying that the developers of the app have to have a way to block certain users from using the app - like say users that have been account banned by google/apple - as saying that users have to be able to block other users.
How old is this conversation?
I donât expect Elon to have the various store policies memorized, but shouldnât an employee be aware of this shit? Why is he being schooled by users?
Maybe he fired the âpolicy advisorâ, too.
Itâs 3 days old. You joke, but I wouldnât be surprised at all if he fired the policy advisors.
Lol I wasnât joking!
but shouldnât an employee be aware of this shit
The fact that this is blank makes it ten times funnier
Elmo doesnât run ideas past people. Heâs reached the no-filter point where he just posts whatever he thinks of as the next twitter policy. Heâs done that pretty much since Day 1 at twitter, and he was getting close to that at tesla.
Thereâs a theory that the drugs he was reportedly doing to stay awake 23 hours a day while the Model 3 was a non-shipping supply chain disaster (which threatened him with the loss of a multi-billion dollar bonus, iirc) gave him a speed induced psychosis. He was always an arrogant prick who used lies to con people, now heâs someone with a decompensated personality disorder on top of that.
I believe his lack of content moderation has already led to several violations of european laws which are making their way through the courts.
He will simply walk it back once theyâre actually threatened with having their app pulled.
Iâm a slow learner. Sometimes, like now, Iâm caught expecting Twitter to run like a sane business.
The one on store policies is wrong. The section people point to is actually about developers of the app having the ability to block specific users from using the app.
deleted by creator
Iâm confused. Isnât âblockâ on the fediverse essentially the same as mute on Twitter? Donât get me wrong, I dislike Elon as much as the next sane person does and I do like the idea of block as itâs implemented on Twitter vs fediverse, but I also understand why itâs not possible on the fediverse. So Iâm kind of just asking, isnât it kind of shooting ourselves in the foot to argue against him on this point? He can easily turn around and just say itâs the same way as the fediverse. And I feel like itâs even worse when we use the fediverse to make these accusations. It makes us look either stupid or hypocritical. I guess thereâs a small sliver of hope in the argument âyou should implement the best block the technology allowsâ but that seems a lot more nuanced then many people will listen to.
As far as Iâm aware âmuteâ means the other person can still see your profile and comments and they can still reply to those comments - they just wonât show on your feed or in your messages. This is absolutely useless if youâve been threatened or stalked by someone.
âBlockâ means the other person canât see your profile or any of your comments and you canât see theirs. Lemmy has âblockâ for users and âbanâ for admins and moderators. I wasnât aware that Lemmy has âmuteâ but Iâm not an expert.
Block on Lemmy doesnât prevent the blocked person from seeing your posts.
Edit: which is the crux of comparing mute on Twitter to block on Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon etc.
Even defederating doesnât stop them from seeing your posts. It just means you donât collect theirs.
Are you sure? I havenât blocked anyone on this account because the admins told me if I do I canât see that personâs comments in the communities I moderate⊠which rather interferes with moderating.
Can you block me for a bit so I can try it? Can you even block a moderator? You probably shouldnât be able to do that within the community they moderate because that completely defeats the object.
Youâre kind of proving my point. If you block me, it just means you canât see me.
Edit: the âproblemâ with blocking on the fediverse is that the concept of block needs to be implemented server side, not client side. So every instance would need to implement it meaning everything you post would have to carry the information of who you block. Itâs how publishing works in ActivityPub. Thereâs no way for another instance to know that you blocked XYZ so how would they know not to show you that post? Also in regards to defederating, publishing is basically a fancy RSS feed. Anyone can read it, even just you if you view that port. So itâs kind of just blindly shooting it out into the world. Defederating means you explicitly donât read certain RSS feeds but you canât stop them from reading yours. You could networkly block someone, but thatâs on a different layer of communication beyond the web applicationâs capabilities.
I wasnât arguing against your point, I just asked if you were sure because I didnât have any experience of it. If you shut down genuine discussions and questions with âyouâre proving my pointâ you prevent people from growing and learning. But whatever, have a nice day.
~~Dude, weâve had discussions before and Iâm all for you going somewhere else and suddenly complaining about how you had a bad time with me not providing you a genuine discussion, but when your whole comment reiterates my point, what are you expecting to happen? You just described that you were told XYZ happens and thatâs exactly what I said would happen.
Its becoming pretty fucking clear from my interactions with you that you donât understand honest discussions.~~
Edit: I realized a few minutes after posting it was another mod with a similar name. Came back to correct it. I got ahead of myself.
The rest of it still stands though. The behavior you were told would occur is the exact behavior Iâm describing.
I genuinely donât know what youâre talking about, but I do know youâre becoming aggressive and not only is that completely unwarranted, itâs against the rules of this community. I think itâs best we donât interact with each other at all, outside of moderating.
you donât understand honest discussions
Ironic
They wanted you to block them. So they could test if they could still see your comments after that.
Plus, I already know for a fact it works that way. Because I experienced it. I blocked someone and then later, noticed they replied to me because I had not logged in yet.
Like, I donât think I should have to prove the way the published documentation says activitypub works. This is objective fact of how it works. Thereâs no way for me to know who blocks me unless I admin the server where that person actually is and I modify the code to view it. But the activitypub protocol doesnât publish that and I totally understand why. Itâs like how Lemmy doesnât show aggregated voting, only the voting of that instance. Itâs extra info that needs to be added. Now imagine if every blocking action was also now encoded in an activitypub and every instance that read it had to keep that info. Databases would grow much faster than they do now. Itâs simply not effective. And itâd have to be repeated so new instances also will get it. So youâre basically adding at least a daily or weekly posting, unencrypted of who everyone is blocking. All you gotta do is setup an instance and just ignore that data. But then you could easily target people who target you. Being entirely transparent is part of the reason blocking canât work.
That doesnât change anything. Theyâre saying they were told if they block someone, XYZ would happen. And XYZ is what I described. What would changing the direction do? Itâs like just asking to be on the other side of the exact behavior that Iâm describing. It doesnât offer new information.
Because they want to see if that is what actually happens. Come on man.
deleted by creator
Why not just advocate for both services having a block feature.
Weâre users, not Lemmy creators. This would be like criticizing Instagram users for using a Facebook service when itâs Facebook and Zuckerberg who are the problems.
Because thereâs no real way to implement blocking on a decentralized platform without severely increasing overhead per post, plus itâd be super easy for any instance to ignore it. I meant what i said when I claimed to understand why itâs not on the fediverse. Itâs a logistical nightmare that would greatly increase the server requirements to host and defeat the intent.
But I still donât see why this makes users the hypocrites.
I also know why itâs not on the fediverse but that doesnât mean I support the lack of blocking.
I agree but I think youâve got confused with your analogy - meta owns Facebook and Instagram.
Sorry I just forgot
No worries, itâs hard it keep up! I was going to use Pinterest in an example but couldnât remember if they were owned by someone else đ€·đŒââïž
Comparing the platforms and making some weird âis it ok to criticize Twitter when Lemi does it the same wayâ argument is weird.
Elon can turn around say whatever he wants because he owns the comedy club he paid way too much for, and because itâs a free internet, and because he literally doesnât care about facts or feelings or anything other than being popular to a weird gaggle of trolls. Believe me, if he points at Lemi to say âsee? They donât have blocking and theyâre making fun of meâ itâs because it bothers his ego and nothing more.
And Twitter needs to have blocking. People have to be able to remove harassment from their social existence there. I assume a number of hateful accounts will/have resurfaced on my feeds with the removal of blocking, thankfully I havenât used Twitter since he took over and I wonât.
I donât understand why different platforms have different needs. Why does Twitter need it, but every application on the fediverse does not?
Edit: and how is it weird to criticize someone for doing the same thing someone else does when youâre ok with that someone else doing it? Thatâs literally defining double standards.
No one said the fediverse doesnât need it. Iâd argue that it does.
I feel like everyone is skipping over my comment of understanding why the fediverse doesnât and the one comment about the nuanced approach.
Too many people donât understand ActivityPubâs limitations. You canât implement that level of blocking in any feasible way. Thatâs literally why no one does it.
What are you on about? Whoâs âarguing against himâ?
If you are getting harassed, or just annoyed by another user you can still mute them. That takes their posts off your feed entirely.
The feature they are removing is one that was routinely abused. Someone spreads misinformation, or says something dumb, and gets called out on it. They say âsource?â And block the user calling them out, and now that person canât respond and be seen by anyone in that thread. The audience thinks they just abandoned the conversation.
Block was there to help liars and the stubbornly misinformed censor other people, itâs good that itâs gone. Itâs worth noting that now X/Twitter works the same way Lemmy does. Lemmy never had a block feature the way X used to.
I really donât think stalking victims would agree itâs good âblockâ has gone. I understand how it was being abused - itâs frustrating and annoying but not being able to completely block someone on social media is more than that, it can be real-world dangerous. Think domestic violence, custody disputes, abusive parents etc. Social media can be invaluable for at-risk people, but not if they canât block the people putting them at risk.
Stalking victims blocking someone doesnât make them not able to view their posts though, since they can just log out and view them or create a new free account and see them. They need to set their posts to private and not accept follow requests from people that they havenât verified are who they say they are, thatâs the only way.
If someoneâs stalking users they need to be banned by the mods.
Creating a feature that allows anyone to censor anyone else in a conversation ends up ruining the entire conversation.
Again, lemmy doesnât have this. Are you just as mad at the people developing and operating lemmy servers for this?
Iâm not mad and Iâm confused why you think I am?
Personally, I consider lemmy and Reddit to be different from Facebook, Twitter and other social media. You generally donât know any redditors/lemmings irl and in an anonymous forum itâs much easier to stay truly anonymous. On Facebook and I think soon on Twitter, youâre meant to use your real name and in some cases show government ID.
So no, Iâm not mad at Lemmy developers, Iâm not mad at anyone at the moment. But as someone who was stalked (thankfully before social media existed) I am concerned for other victims, particularly as Twitter doesnât have moderators anymore. Even if they reinstated them, moderators can slow to act on such a large platform and they only enforce the rules of the platform - someone just reading your posts isnât breaking any rules, yet they could be using that information to cause you a real-world harm. Thatâs why I think the block feature needs to exist, but it just my opinion. We can have different opinions without arguing.
Twitter doesnât require real names or any sort of verification btw. Completely anonymous unless you intentionally want to show your real details.
Thanks. I think this is what I might have been thinking of. But yeah, itâs not necessary.
Yeah I thought that might have been what you were thinking of. I would think that will play part in some further âverifiedâ tick system for the twitter blue subscribers if they ever bring it in.
TBH I wish that on all social media like Twitter/Facebook you were required to prove your identity and have your real name. It would (hopefully) make people a bit more responsible in their actions and stop a lot of the terrible things people write and do.
If your Twitter is publicly viewable then blocks do nothing to protect you, because someone could still see your profile by making a new account.
If you just donât want to see harassing posts, mute works for that.
The only people that need a block feature are those trying to censor others
[deleted my comment. Not appropriate]
Neither of our instances let you block users like Twitter used to. Are you going to complain to your admin?
If you think itâs dangerous when Elon does it, but perfectly fine when your admin does it, then it doesnât sound like it the actual feature that matters.
What are you talking about? Why would I complain to an admin? Dangerous when Elon does what?
Youâre a nutcase.Removed by mod
Arguing is against the rules of this community. Iâm going to nuke this whole thread because itâs becoming nasty and thatâs not welcome here either. Please read the rules and make sure you donât break them again or you will be banned. Thank you.
You must think Iâm someone else.
I block shit all the time on Lemmy.
Wtf are you talking about Jesse
deleted by creator
Blocking on Twitter is not the same thing as blocking on lemmy.
Twitter has a âmuteâ feature that is equivalent to the feature lemmy has. That mute feature is staying.
Lemmy letâs you hide all of a users posts by blocking them, but that block does not prevent them from commenting for others to see.
