[tomp]

I don't understand why Twitter doesn't generate some general "white/blacklist" feature that people could opt in/out of? Things like, a "porn" filter, a "n-word" filter, a "faminist"/"mysogynist" filter, etc. Some of these could be automatic (e.g. porn and spam and virus links), some manual (e.g. "all people who this particular user disagrees with"), they could be curated by Twitter itself or by any other entity/user, and some general would be default/opt-out (e.g. porn, hate speech, gore), others would be opt-in (e.g. "no politics" filter).

IMO that solves most of the problems - allowing unbiased freedom of speech/communication, while still preserving basic decency for the majority of people. In addition, you'd have a capitalist market/competition for ideas - if a curator of a filter becomes untrustworthy (starts abusing their "power" by "censoring" too many voices) the filter could simply by forked, improved, and users would migrate to something better!

Edit: In addition, this would also solve all kinds of legal issues - you could simply make a per-country level filters that users connecting from that country would automatically be exposed to, but all such government-imposed censorship would be implemented in a very transparent manner!

[pjc50]

Per-country filters already exist.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222#

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kz57j/this-is-ho...

User-curated blocklists were tool deployed by both sides in Gamergate. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2015/sharing-block...

[tomschlick]

> IMO that solves most of the problems

And creates echo chambers.

That's part of the problem with Facebook, once you start posting and interacting with certain types of content you get the same type of content more often. Leaving out the opposing viewpoints and giving you the impression that everyone agrees with you.