Actually, does that work? One of the main reasons I’m still hanging around is sports discussions, plus one specific niche topic, but many of those people I’m conversing with aren’t following me. Hmm.
Elmo didn’t spend $44 billion dollars buying his own social media platform just to have people block him on it. He’ll run it into the ground before he lets that happen.
Oh wait…
Both Apple and Google require a block feature on social media apps in order for them to be available in their app stores. I don’t think this latest crazy idea will go far.
Wouldn’t people still be able to “protect” their tweets, so that others would have to get permission to follow them and comment on their posts? I’ve seen accounts that restrict commenting to people the account follows or mentioned on the account.
I am still pretty new to all the permutations of the Twitter toxic waste dump.
Yes, I think this might still be negotiable for people who have a lot of followers. But for people like me, who have few followers but are interested in getting into conversations on certain topics, this is a killer… Because I’ll comment, and none of them will see it.
ETA actually, I typed all that, but I’m not sure how it works. If I’m following an unprotected account, say a sports team, and they are not following me, I assume they can’t see my tweets if I’m locked?
“Blocking users from the service” is a server-side thing. It’s not the same as the ability for users to block other users.
It’s written unclearly, but I don’t think you’re right. The Apple requirement is that “apps…must include the ability to block abusive users from the service.” It’s not the service that needs the ability, it’s the app.
The Google requirements are clearer:
Apps that contain or feature UGC [user-generated content]…must implement robust, effective, and ongoing UGC moderation that:
…
- Provides an in-app system for blocking UGC and users
As I’ve said before, Musk is Trump with a much better moral compass (i.e.: actually tries to point at something rather than endlessly spinning in circles while trying to point at itself).
I would have thought that a compass that directs one in the wrong direction is worse than one that directs one in no direction at all.
Put another way: Musk at least gives the impression that he’s interested in helping others* whereas Trump is only interested in helping himself.
*Granted, much of that “help” isn’t actually possible.
Having meditated on the conundrum, I guess it would depend on whether one has foreknowledge that one compass is faulty and points in the wrong direction. If one has this knowledge, one knows which way not to go, while the spinning compass offers no clues.
I don’t think that’s quite right - Trump is crafty enough to frame all of his travails as “an attack on YOU, the American people” (not a direct quote but if I weren’t lazy I’m sure I could find one that would be similar). So he poses as a champion of the little guy.
But, I guess you could argue that part of Elon’s self-image includes “I’m doing great things for humanity” whether or not that is actually the case. With Trump, it probably stops at “Look how great I am.”
While not really doing anything other than looking for the next bit of word salad which his supporters will eat up.
Exactly!
Yes, very well stated Carol.
Your read is that users should be able to block other users from the service?
I think it’s fairly clearly written to say that the owner of the app needs to be able to block problem users from posting content on their platform.
You can search for various discussions of this rule and the implementation of it, but
The accepted answer is no longer true. I just had an app rejected because there is no mechanism for users to block other users. We already have a user-driven content flagging system, and demonstrated that there was a process in place for reviewing and removing objectionable content and blocking abusive users from the service altogether, but Apple said:
In addition to the reporting mechanism, it would be appropriate to implement a separate blocking mechanism that allows a user to block abusive users.
…where “it would be appropriate to” apparently means “your app is rejected until you.”
We indicated that our staff block users from the whole service if they post abusive content, but Apple says that this is not sufficient; users must now be able to directly block each other.
This is section 1.2 of the updated review guidelines.
I disagree, although I’m not saying users should be able to block other users from using the service, just that users can block content from other users from appearing in their own feed.
I think my position is supported by Google’s requirements which more clearly say that one user must be able to block another user’s content from appearing to them. But it’s just my opinion, and if Musk wants to take Apple to court to argue that his apps don’t need a user blocking function, he’s welcome to try. In the end, it’s Apple’s app store, so their opinion is really all that matters.
As long as “humanity” means “me, and other people like me, like my fellow 1%ers, and if push comes to shove, the other 1%ers can fuck off.”
I’m honestly surprised that Trump still hasn’t returned with everything Musk has already done. Is it inertia? Does he think Musk is a loser still? Is he still trying to make TS work?