778
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
778 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37705 readers
275 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Huh why ? This doesn't make sense
There's been a big effort to block anybody with a blue checkmark since any major story or viral post will have them automatically bumped up to the top of the replies. So, when the whiners started complaining, he started openly considering this.
He will end up "compromising".
You can block people, but only people without blue check marks.
Wanna harass someone, wanna be a troll, subscribe to Twitter blue and you can't be blocked...
Aren't there different twitter tiers, too? Like, blue and gold? I wonder if you'll only be allowed to block people in your tier and below, so that unpaid accounts can't block anybody
IIRC the gold checkmarks are reserved for big corporate accounts that want it, and Twitter demands $1000/mo for that. Incredible.
Yeah, imagine how much value he'd be adding to the gold checkmark by restricting who could block them
Honestly, I don't think that's a problem. Twitter always got its money from people paying to show you stuff you didn't want to see. So what if the ads are now tweets?