zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for all rules violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which should probably be banned.)

Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do right now with NSFW content) - the default filter would be very "protective" (no porn, no violence, no gore, no hate speech) but users could turn off any or all of these "filters". The next step is the addition of user-curated "lists" / "filters" (e.g. "no democrats", "no republicans", "no vegans", "no dog lovers", ...).

>>tomp+en
I'm not actually against the idea, but arbitrary blocklists would accelerate bubbling people away from anyone who could possibly think differently from them, which has its own issues.

>>yjftsj+8S
Radicalism and inciting to violence should be bubbled not amplified.

>>onemor+O71
But then the people who are open to such things stay exposed, while detaching from anyone else, thus ensuring that they spiral ever further into their own viewpoint. That's how you create radicals.

>>yjftsj+wC1
Yeah, bubbling is not a magic solution. But why amplify these voices? And why on your “private” platform? A lot of unchecked toxicity can lead to Twitters demise. They set some rules to mitigate for that. Seems ok to me for that to be done for Trumps opponents too.

Remember trolls wreaking havoc on forums? Didn’t they have the right for free speech too and nobody complained when rules were added to try to contain them?