top | item 41632046

(no title)

CincinnatiMan | 1 year ago

I'm not on Twitter but in its current form, wouldn't a blocked user be able to see the blocker's posts just by using an incognito window or logging in as a different account?

discuss

order

zerocrates|1 year ago

With Twitter you would have been able to just do incognito mode. In the "X" era, following someone's posts when not logged in is pretty difficult as the profiles don't actually show their current tweets but rather a sort of random pile, maybe popular ones?, and that's only when you don't just get directed to sign in. You can see a particular message if you have a direct link to it, but you can't see or follow any threads, etc...

Using a different account would work, sure, though that of course evades the block entirely, in both directions.

The point was probably moreso that the posts wouldn't show up in the blocked person's feed, they'd have to actively seek them out. That probably does make a real difference.

SketchySeaBeast|1 year ago

Different account, yes, incognito window, no. You can only see direct links without being logged in.

amenhotep|1 year ago

Yes. It's always been a stupid, petulant implementation, and its widespread acceptance is confusing.

Jordrok|1 year ago

The point of blocking is to prevent harassment, no? Hiding the blocker's posts from the blockee puts up an additional barrier to interaction. Even if it can be circumvented, it still requires some effort and may dissuade the person from continuing the harassment. There is a reason why this is the standard implementation for almost every social media site, and petulance has nothing to do with it.

angry_octet|1 year ago

No, they changed that ages ago.