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
Unfortunately, you're bubbling away people who believe in free speech and free thought as well, and there are probably a lot more of those.

edit: Adding a bit more, the people being bubbled away will likely tend to just isolate. You might think you like that idea, but having spent some time in isolation, I will attest that it kind of messes with your head. You lose your "phase lock" with society on a lot of different norms, small and large. The stereotype of the "dangerous loner", though not always fair, attests to this reality.

If you want to keep someone as a useful member of society and not a tragedy-of-the-day, you have to keep talking to them.

>>downer+UG1
Technically this is not even bubbling, at least not how google implemented it, as I understand. Im not on Twitter but if anyone knows, does this action by twitter actually bubble Trump away form people who otherwise would have seen his feed?

And by freedom of speech and thought, how about for twitter? Arent’t they a private company?

>>onemor+EJ2
It seems that this freedom of speech and thought is such a vague concept that gets twisted and turned according to whoever wants to make a point. Let’s have a definition to what exactly it is to cover and then we’ll talk. And no goalpost moving after the definition please:)