Twitter today made changes to how the block function works in a way that seems counterintuitive and perhaps even the exact opposite of what it had been previously. The change essentially acts as an earplug rather than a barrier which separates people from accounts they don’t wish to interact with. A few hours later though, the company backed down.
The new policy, which came into effect immediately and without public notification, allowed blocked accounts to see, follow, and interact with the accounts that block them, except that the blocked account won’t be able to see or know that. It effectively performs a mute function rather than a proper block. Why Twitter didn’t just rename it to “mute” is unclear because the action obviously performs what a mute function is expected to do.
By changing the block function to the new behavior, it meant that stalkers or people with malicious intent can far more easily monitor their target, keep track of them, store their tweets, distribute, or use them as they wish.
Yo @twitter this is stupid! What the fuck is the point of a block in the first place then? https://t.co/hwRxp22i5l pic.twitter.com/c9zPzIJBdw
— Aulia Masna (@aulia)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Preventing Retaliation Twitter told TechCrunch that the new behavior was designed to prevent retaliatory actions. When a person is blocked, they would know it when they try to visit their target’s profile because Twitter would tell them that they are unauthorized to do so. Apparently there have been instances in which this led to elevated and and extreme responses although the company did not provide more specific examples. Twitter also reiterated the point that tweets are public and therefore can be seen by everyone.
On one hand, Twitter has a point. Blocked people have always been able to see tweets from people who block them by going directly to the target account without logging in, which can easily be done from any web browser. They can also create other accounts, with varying inconspicuous names, to follow them again.
However, tracking tweets without logging in severely limits a person’s activities to merely viewing and perhaps taking screenshots of the tweets. They won’t be able to interact with their targets on Twitter in any way at all.
When people use different accounts to follow their targets, sooner or later their activities will be noticed and they will subsequently be blocked again.
Derek Powazek perhaps said it best in explaining how the new block works.
You catch a peeping tom staring in your window and call the cops. They install one-way glass so he can see you but you can’t see him.
— Ebenezer Powazek (@fraying)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This leads people to form an opinion that Twitter is siding with the stalkers and abusers by letting them do what they wish and making them invisible to the target or victim.
A student is being harassed by a bully in a classroom full of kids. The teacher offers the student earplugs.
— Ebenezer Powazek (@fraying)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Twitter’s position seems to be that ignorance is bliss. What they don’t know won’t hurt them.
Twitter: People are upset by this because you’re clearly prioritizing the abusers over the abused. Please reconsider this change.
— Ebenezer Powazek (@fraying)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
@safety @twitter this non-blocked blocking is for the birds. It doesn’t stop them from tweeting and having their friends RT. Pls reconsider.
— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Reverting the block In less than five hours though, Twitter reversed its decision and reverted nearly all the changes to the blocking function it had implemented.
Twitter’s VP of product Michael Sippey posted on Twitter’s main blog emphasizing that the changes were made to prevent post-block reactions which can be far more severe than pre-block abuse but the company decided to turn back on its decision because the backlash #restoretheblock had been so overwhelming, there was even a change.org petition.
In all fairness, neither solutions are ideal. One has the potential to spark severe reactions, even offline, another lets abusers roam free around their targets. The Twitter crowd certainly prefers the prior block behavior because it allowed a more immediate control over who can interact with them at the risk of retaliation, expecting that such a risk may be relatively low.
AuliaSays 