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?
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.
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.
> To stop harassment, reach out to the platform, assuming it cares about harassment, and if it doesn't, contact law enforcement, or file a lawsuit
Your wording suggests that you seem to be aware that none of these avenues actually work in the real world, which is precisely why platforms have the ability to block.
> Your wording suggests that you seem to be aware that none of these avenues actually work in the real world, which is precisely why platforms have the ability to block.
You may personally infer that, but the precise reason platforms have the ability to block someone is, "I don't like this person for whatever reason so I don't want to see their posts or replies". Maybe you don't want to see their posts or replies because you feel they are harassing. Blocking/ignoring them stops you from seeing them. It shouldn't affect anyone else's ability to see their posts or replies to you.
Honestly, in what other public, online discussion forum can anybody without admin powers, arbitrarily and unilaterally ban others from publicly replying to public posts?
Having worked at a fairly prominent social media company, that is not why social media platforms have block functionality. Mute, functionality, yes, absolutely.
Blocking is typically a much stronger remedy, aimed at curtailing targeted harassment.
> can be done by making an account private, or not posting the posts publicly
but not the criteria where you _want_ other people to see your posts publicly.
aka, the ask is to allow individuals to "excommunicate" a particular user, not just blocking.
I'm glad, tho, that twitter does not allow this. I think having this feature allows for echo chambers...(tho, this is currently already true so may be it's moot...?)
The point is that contacting you isn’t always needed to harass you if the opponent have enough influence (or bots under his control) to harass you with its minions.
Of course it could be bypassed but it requires effort and most harassers are in fact pretty stupid people who just happen to have an influence over a group of people as stupid as them.
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.