So long as everyone using the platform can modify their own list, no it's not the same problem at all. The question is: do I get to decide who I listen to, or do you?
You can already block people on Twitter. The problem arises with shared blocklists. How is a shared blocklist identified? Well, the odds are that it will probably need to have a name. You now have the following problem: the name can be used to promote hate if the name of that blocklist is visible to other users, or to falsely associate a given user with other nefarious groups, as Google will probably crawl the lists and the results will show up in searches. The whole thing ends up being exactly an added moderation mess, just like what you started with, but with a few more layers of indirection and different ways it can be abused. Plus you still have the original problem of moderating messages that needs to be solved.
Solutions like this look great initially if everyone uses them properly, but everything falls apart when people inevitably start actively abusing the new feature. The design needs to handle assholes-at-scale from the outset.
bcrl|3 years ago
Solutions like this look great initially if everyone uses them properly, but everything falls apart when people inevitably start actively abusing the new feature. The design needs to handle assholes-at-scale from the outset.
ImPostingOnHN|3 years ago
You choosing to listen to something doesn't mean you also get to force whatever platforms you want, to carry whatever you choose to listen to.
I find it hard to believe that there is someone you want to listen to, who you currently aren't able to, because twitter deplatformed them.
philistine|3 years ago