To write an entire post about the block button without saying the word abuse is something I didn’t think possible. It’s not just about different points of view. Sometimes it’s being able to exist in these spaces at all without having your existence threatened. That’s the difference between an AI recommending glue on pizza and a human being threatening violence.
“Harassment” is broadly equivalent, no? Abuse is brief but harassment is what makes the difference, negatively.
“Having your existence threatened” - you mean death threats, specifically? Because otherwise what do you mean? Death threats online go all the way up the scale from “ignore as an idiot” to “contact police”. (You could argue that blocking someone who is making credible death threats is actually the wrong move because you need to gather evidence.)
And again, my point is about preemptive blocking. If you really know ahead of time exactly who the people making credible death threats against you are, maybe you should offer your services to the police.
I checked Clearsky (thanks for the link) and found that I’m blocked by 8 people (including, to my mild chagrin, Dr Brooke Magnanti). It seems to be because I’m on a list that includes (or excludes) anyone who’s following Helen Lewis.
Another thought. If I know I’m blocked by people who don’t want to hear a particular view expressed, does it make me more or less likely to a) express that view b) moderate my tone?
I think if you hold that view (whatever it is), one can always remember that the internet is quite big, so there are people who may find your view exactly what they want to hear. As Seth says, it depends what you think of the people who blocked you. But if they blocked you, how can they find out you moderated your view?
I suggest there's two different issues here getting mixed-up: 1) Do people have some sort of obligation to read views they find deplorable? 2) The effects of a system of blacklisting.
Let's use Jesse Singal as an example. If someone hates his writing, should they read it anyway in order to be an informed intellectual? That's a complicated topic, because every liar is going to claim this mantle, argue that one shouldn't be close-minded. But that's different from somebody making up a badlist of, say hypothetically, "Fascists, incels, eugenicists, and general no-good people", starting out listing literal Nazis and real misogynists, and then adding him. When challenged, defending it under the catch-all "general no-good". Then anyone who follows him gets added too.
In general, there's a big distinction between what one wants to read personally, and structures to suppress what are considered to be dangerous ideas.
Absolutely. As I said in the piece, my issue is with preemptive blocking based on someone else’s opinion, which seems to me to be a bad way to go about understanding the world.
Ah, but not everybody on social media is interested in "understanding the world". Quite a few are interested in something like venting or getting support from the like-minded. That's the whole reply-guy/mansplaining/sealioning etc line of complaint. A relatively small, but outsize in power, group is interested in building their audience - disagreement can just be annoying noise at best, or a distraction. I'm somehow reminded of this classic scene:
The main thing I've been blocking and muting on Bluesky are bots and spam accounts (no real human in their 20s is going to send me a DM saying 'hi' and nothing else). So I agree with the concern over filters (although in the states the one thing that seems to be filtered out of a lot of the media statements is pointing out that everything Musk is doing is technically illegal under the constitution) but think there should have been a bigger case for all the garbage accounts forcing people to block accounts because we know they aren't human. That's why so many people are blocking on Bluesky, to get rid of the bots, not human accounts.
To write an entire post about the block button without saying the word abuse is something I didn’t think possible. It’s not just about different points of view. Sometimes it’s being able to exist in these spaces at all without having your existence threatened. That’s the difference between an AI recommending glue on pizza and a human being threatening violence.
“Harassment” is broadly equivalent, no? Abuse is brief but harassment is what makes the difference, negatively.
“Having your existence threatened” - you mean death threats, specifically? Because otherwise what do you mean? Death threats online go all the way up the scale from “ignore as an idiot” to “contact police”. (You could argue that blocking someone who is making credible death threats is actually the wrong move because you need to gather evidence.)
And again, my point is about preemptive blocking. If you really know ahead of time exactly who the people making credible death threats against you are, maybe you should offer your services to the police.
I checked Clearsky (thanks for the link) and found that I’m blocked by 8 people (including, to my mild chagrin, Dr Brooke Magnanti). It seems to be because I’m on a list that includes (or excludes) anyone who’s following Helen Lewis.
It is rather weird to be blocked because you want to hear the views of someone who appears every week on Radio 4 doing a series with Armando Iannuci.
I gave up Bluesky (after giving up Twitter) and stick with Substack - feels much healthier
Another thought. If I know I’m blocked by people who don’t want to hear a particular view expressed, does it make me more or less likely to a) express that view b) moderate my tone?
I think if you hold that view (whatever it is), one can always remember that the internet is quite big, so there are people who may find your view exactly what they want to hear. As Seth says, it depends what you think of the people who blocked you. But if they blocked you, how can they find out you moderated your view?
It depends on whether or not you care about those people. The answer may differ if they are your community versus your opponents.
I suggest there's two different issues here getting mixed-up: 1) Do people have some sort of obligation to read views they find deplorable? 2) The effects of a system of blacklisting.
Let's use Jesse Singal as an example. If someone hates his writing, should they read it anyway in order to be an informed intellectual? That's a complicated topic, because every liar is going to claim this mantle, argue that one shouldn't be close-minded. But that's different from somebody making up a badlist of, say hypothetically, "Fascists, incels, eugenicists, and general no-good people", starting out listing literal Nazis and real misogynists, and then adding him. When challenged, defending it under the catch-all "general no-good". Then anyone who follows him gets added too.
In general, there's a big distinction between what one wants to read personally, and structures to suppress what are considered to be dangerous ideas.
Absolutely. As I said in the piece, my issue is with preemptive blocking based on someone else’s opinion, which seems to me to be a bad way to go about understanding the world.
Ah, but not everybody on social media is interested in "understanding the world". Quite a few are interested in something like venting or getting support from the like-minded. That's the whole reply-guy/mansplaining/sealioning etc line of complaint. A relatively small, but outsize in power, group is interested in building their audience - disagreement can just be annoying noise at best, or a distraction. I'm somehow reminded of this classic scene:
Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"
Goldfinger: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
[i.e, the goal is not conversation]
The main thing I've been blocking and muting on Bluesky are bots and spam accounts (no real human in their 20s is going to send me a DM saying 'hi' and nothing else). So I agree with the concern over filters (although in the states the one thing that seems to be filtered out of a lot of the media statements is pointing out that everything Musk is doing is technically illegal under the constitution) but think there should have been a bigger case for all the garbage accounts forcing people to block accounts because we know they aren't human. That's why so many people are blocking on Bluesky, to get rid of the bots, not human accounts.
Sure - my point was about preemptive blocking. If one can be sure that one is preemptively blocking only bots, well, fine.