• CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s already been noted elsewhere that this will directly violate Apple’s and Google’s app store policies. The X app should be immediately pulled as a result.

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      A single character app name also violated Apple’s policies until a few weeks ago, so…

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Literally look at how much attention it’s getting him!

              Never mind the real goal - he’s got an established far reaching platform, he doesn’t care about those leaving it, he cares about those staying, that’s who he’s pandering to - the bigots and the companies openly willing to do business with bigots. And he now has his own media outlet that is aimed directly at them.

              People think he’s just some clueless manchild, and while he is the latter, he’s definitely not the former, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and that’s building up an empire to secure his power indefinitely.

          • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It isn’t clear that he does. If he did, he wouldn’t have needed to dupe ::ahem:: “persuade” investors to bankroll his takeover.

    • Lanky_Pomegranate530@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with with you. I don’t understand why anyone would still want to use this platform considering that their are better alternatives such as Mastadon and BlueSky. Hell even threads is better than twitter and that shit is invasive as fuck.

      • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you even get a Blowski account, anyway? I guess they give out invitations, but they’re slow to do it.

        • Veloxization@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          People on the platform can generate invites at some intervals and send them to friends. That’s my understanding, while I don’t know for certain as I personally am avoiding the platform due to not trusting Dorsey at the helm. But I’m still keeping an eye on it with popcorn ready.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    With a block feature removed, you too can be absolutely hounded until you are forced to leave the site out of frustration, hopefully leading to an echo chamber circle jerk that kills the service by driving out a massive amount of people.

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly could not be happier at how Musk is destroying Twitter as a platform. Think there’s any way to convince him to buy Meta?

  • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    At this point if you’re still using Twitter you might as well be literally licking Elon Musk’s balls.

    My sympathies go to creators who used this platform to engage with their fans and try to make a living, but it’s time to cut losses and jump off this shit ship.

    • Devion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      A while back he (Musk) posted that individual blocklists are relatively expensive (cpu wise) to run, which is true. This has been getting much worse with the whole blue check debacle. People are blocking those idiots en masse. I’m fairly sure this is just a cost saving measure.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is probably why. If douchebags pay to self identify, you can’t have them blocked by 1/3 of your users or they aren’t getting their value.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He thinks it will make it impossible for people to not listen to him and his sycophants. What he forgets is that everyone always has the choice to just not use it.

  • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I had to read that headline twice, at first I thought it was specifying users on ecstasy. That’s such a bad name

  • Brad Ganley@toad.work
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What in the actual fuck? Does he have to collapse the ambling corpse even further so he can discover why the ability to block existed and then re-invent it but shittier to convince himself it’s necessary?

    • Hexagon@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t worry, it will come back as a paid feature. Isn’t he a marketing genius?

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not an Elon fan, but he’s not removing the mute feature… Which makes a bad headline but is accurate.

    There was this whole debate with Mastodon because at least it didn’t originally have a block button either and a bunch of the Twitter converted were outraged.

    The thing is, blocking is pretty meaningless when you have a public profile. In a sense it’s a false sense of security, because if someone is really trying to stalk you, all they have to do is open another browser, open your profile, and not login to the site or just create another account…

    Edit: The one thing of value I forgot about is that blocking does stop someone from commenting on your posts, which in theory lets you cater your community/content a bit better. Though, part of why I always forget this use case is that it never really seemed to work. The small people don’t have trolls and the big people (understandably) aren’t taking the time to block all the trolls.

    • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk, there’s definitely cases were blocking is super important. For example, small/ish institutions that attract a disproportionate amount of hate online but still serve important functions. One that comes to mind is @auschwitzmuseum… like it’s always gonna attract holocaust deniers, and not blocking them just exposes people who want to support it to antisemitism all the time.

      This is just one example I’ve witnessed, but there must be many many more. Planned Parenthood…Charities that help people that are considered undesirables. Generally any institution dealing with “controversial” fields. I could go on.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, when I remembered that sort of stuff I added the edit… I guess personally, I think that’s better handled at the site wide moderation lvl vs leaving accounts to deal with that and just “block” people… but it’s Musk so I don’t see that kind of moderation happening anytime soon.

        The whole “one person vs all the trolls” issue is part of why the reddit/community style format (where at least a team of volunteers can handle the issues) won me over vs the twitter/microblogging format for social media.