Dear Twitter…


It would be super duper fantastically awesome if you could improve your “block” feature so that old school RTs and mentions of blocked individuals didn’t appear in my Twitter follow feed.

I mean, I know you tried really really hard to create an awesome alternative retweet function, but you failed miserably by cutting out the ability to add our own commentary and haven’t yet addressed the issue. Until you do, I can’t blame anyone for using old school RTs.

Still, when I block someone it’s for a reason. I don’t need fake, conniving, desperate little twits appearing in my feed after they’ve been blocked — at all. People don’t need to see their exes, former clients and employers, or former friends showing up either. A block should indeed be a block — cutting off all connection.

Please don’t tell me Twitter’s only answer is that third parties can only be “friends” with one or the other in a blocked relationship. That’s so high school. So saying we can just unfollow people who retweet things we don’t want to see is not an answer.

So pretty pretty please with five whole cherries on top, Twitter will you finally make your “block” feature work 100%? Even 95% would be honky dory.




  • Mario says:

    Considering your self title “Social Realist”, I did not think that you would even use Twitter.

    I am not against micro-blogging, but what sickens me, is that every service tries to become the only one. Enclosing people in their own sphere.

    Do you know is there is any open standard to implement distributed and non-centralized micro-blogging?

    • I’m not sure how the branding “Social Realist” could even imply what you’re saying. Being realistic about social media doesn’t mean choosing tools based on principle. It’s about not wasting your time trying to be everywhere and on every tool, and instead focusing on being where your own target audience is (for me Twitter is a big one). And it’s about not obsessing over childish popularity tactics (like “influence” rankings that are a joke at best) and instead focusing on that audience or market you’re trying to communicate with instead.

      The exceptions would be when A) a tool could be useful but the time investment to make it work for you won’t produce as great a return as another tactic (in social media or even more traditional means) and B) when that principle is based on safety (like major privacy or security concerns).

      That’s what being a “social realist” is about. It’s not about the individual tools. I despise Facebook and won’t use them because frankly I trust nearly nothing they say or do on the privacy front anymore. I won’t be a part of that and I won’t build a presence there that encourages other people to sign up in order to maintain the relationship. That doesn’t mean I think no one should use the tool. I do, however, heavily use Twitter because it’s a platform that works in the way I need it to (usually). At the same time that doesn’t mean I’m going to tell everyone else they must be on Twitter to succeed in social media. You can use whatever services you want, and as long as those tools are not only working for you but working more effectively and efficiently than other methods of reaching those same goals, then you’re being extremely realistic about social media (as far as I’m concerned).

      We’re also at a point where there is more integration and aggregation than ever — meaning less services trying to become the only one. These days many are linked together. No one encloses anyone in their own little sphere but themselves. And frankly, those who can’t broaden beyond their little circle of pals independently are beyond the help of any tool.

      • Mario says:

        “We’re also at a point where there is more integration and aggregation than ever — meaning less services trying to become the only one. These days many are linked together. No one encloses anyone in their own little sphere but themselves.”

        Show me only one example where I don’t need, for instance, a Twitter account to send a post into the Twitter “Network”… then I will believe you and I will say that paragraph is right.

        • Why would I do that when that’s not what my comment said or implied? If you want to post to Twitter, get a Twitter account. If you’re anti-Twitter, don’t. Pretty simple. My statement was correct — integration and aggregation are bigger now than they’ve ever been in social media. But nowhere did I say you don’t need accounts in order to integrate them. If no solution meets your needs, work to develop one.

          • Mario says:

            By saying that every one is not trying to become the only one and live their own sphere. By forcing you to sign up, they are being a sphere and forcing you to become part of it for you to use them.

            I have already one OpenID identity and I want to use it… not to sign up on everything to get one that will only work with them.

            I do not give a damn if they are being integrated or not. I do not want to keep making new integrations on my site or a blog, for example, every time a new social service appears.

          • If you don’t want to, then don’t. It’s not a difficult concept. Not all sites or companies have to conform to one standard. And frankly, I think it would be foolish if they all did — bigger security risks to user accounts when everything is tied to a single login (precisely why people are constantly reminded to use different passwords wherever they go, regardless of whether or not they all listen).

            I still, however, fail to see how this conversation has anything to do with the original post and Twitter making changes without first asking users what they want. If you have something relevant to add, please do. If you’d like to continue a separate conversation with readers about the merits of open access, you are very welcome to submit a guest post of that nature to share your thoughts and side of the issue.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

Go to the top of the page