> also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through
The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible.
The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.
Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
> Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1]. Not every country does.
Also, that ruling doesn't cover material edge cases. Should a public figure be able to block journalists they don't like? Oil companies anyone with an environmental leaning to avoid tipping them off on something they weren't searching for?
We have a media-bubble problem in America that is increasingly defined by partisan lines. From a social utility position, clarifying that public means public strikes me as more important than edge-case harassment concerns. Particularly when the stakes are so low on both sides of the scale (due to the ease with which blocks can be circumvented and the fact that we're dealing with content the speaker has explicilty chosen to make public).
> In America we have case law that prohibits public officials from blocking their constituents from their official accounts [1].
Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts? Are you stating that you think this is the reason this is being implemented? As for the rest of your post, your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this thread.
> Can’t they just make a new account to see the posts?
Sure. But they may not know they've been blocked.
> you think this is the reason this is being implented?
No. I think it's being done to increase engagement. Engagement scales with outrage, and a pretty simple way to boost outrage would be by showing people stuff they've been blocked from.
> your whole argument is undermined by the arguments you’ve already made in this argument
Not really. Blocking users from seeing your public content degrades weak relationships. My interest in what my state Senator is doing is a weak relationship; I don't think I'd be able to tell if they stopped e-mailing me for at least a full election cycle. Harassment, on the other hand, is a strong relationship. That provides circumvention motivation.
My argument is that there appear to be marginal benefits to this policy. If the cost is making unmotivated harassers' jobs a little easier, inasmuch as it pertains to them viewing (not responding to) public content, that seems to be worth it.
The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible.
The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.