Without the Block feature spammers, scammers, and crazies can destroy anyones posts by filling it with dick pics, scams, gore, anything.
Pretty sure they'd only destroy their own account with that - they'd be 1 report away from being banned. If none of your followers were to report it, it's probably time to cancel your account.
Fair enough. I never used the algorithm timeline that inserts strangers into your stream so that was never an issue for me. Just the people I follow, chronologically, for me. Whether I block them or not, people who really want to would still be able to read my tweets. Blocking them just gives them more acknowledgement than they deserve.
I haven't deleted mine yet, but I only seldom check it. Left this video as a pinned post though, it might inspire some people to quit as well.
This is going to get buried, but I think it's important to note that block on twitter (unlike on most platforms) works both ways. You can still mute an account, and you won't see any of their content or mentions.
By removing block, it means you can no longer block a person from following you, but you can still prevent seeing their stuff. After all - all that person has to do see your public tweets is open an incognito browser window, and view your profile. If you have a private profile, none of this applies to begin with. So in that sense, I agree with Elon - block in its current form on twitter makes no sense.
Edit: Responding directly onto your posts - good point, I hadn't considered that. It's partially circumvented by changing the setting so can comment on your posts, but I agree that's more effort. For all the other things though - if you block someone now they can just take a screenshot of your tweet and comment on that.
I had to get a Facebook account in order to get an api token (for work). So I used a fake name. That apparently triggered something, because I then also had to supply legal id.
What's a guy to do in that case?
Well, obviously the only sensible thing you can do under those circumstances. I just grabbed an example drivers license for my country online, photo shopped my fake name into it, changed since serial numbers, and pasted another face over the black and white photo. The original used a woman's face with curly hair - turns out that if you neatly paste a man's eyes, nose and mouth in there, he looks like a hardrocker. Next step: print it out on paper, take a picture of that from some distance, and submit it to Facebook as proof. Funnily enough, they approved it.
Since I didn't really need to use the account itself, I set it to only accept friend requests from Friends of Friends. But still, whenever I logged in with it, I got a popup that my account was showing "suspicious behaviour". And that's how you submit your id to social media.
Did they though? It might be my filter bubble, but whenever I saw web3 being pushed I saw a small refraction of responses of people who also thought it was a great idea (typical salesbros - so a good idea for others to do, just not for themselves). But the vast majority of people reject it for being a scam.
You should read the thread she posted. Half of it was about management telling her to stop whining when she brought up any of the misconducts against her.
I heard about allowing alternative app stores, but I'm not sure if that also removes the browser engine restrictions. (would make sense though, from an anti-monopoly pov)
I don't see how they would, since ios Firefox doesn't use the same rendering engine it uses on other platforms, Gecko. Instead it has to use Safari, just like any other browser on there.
Duplicating support for all existing extensions would be pretty much impossible if you don't control the rendering engine.
Very.