[JohnMakin]

Maybe caprice except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment. I mean this is the obvious example, there are others. In that case "make your profile private if you dont want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.

[bensecure]

> In that case "make your profile private if you don't want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.

If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.

[JumpCrisscross]

> except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment

Super low-effort harassment, where the harasser can't bother creating a new Twitter account.

[JohnMakin]

It’s an additional barrier. It also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through. And if it’s so easy, why the need for this new “feature” to begin with?

[JumpCrisscross]

> also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through

The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible.

The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.

[JohnMakin]

Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?

In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Not every country does.

Also, that ruling doesn't cover material edge cases. Should a public figure be able to block journalists they don't like? Oil companies anyone with an environmental leaning to avoid tipping them off on something they weren't searching for?

We have a media-bubble problem in America that is increasingly defined by partisan lines. From a social utility position, clarifying that public means public strikes me as more important than edge-case harassment concerns. Particularly when the stakes are so low on both sides of the scale (due to the ease with which blocks can be circumvented and the fact that we're dealing with content the speaker has explicilty chosen to make public).

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf

[JohnMakin]

> In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1].

Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Are you stating that you think this is the reason this is being implemented? As for the rest of your post, your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this thread.

[trompetenaccoun]

There isn't a legitimate need for this feature, that's the point.