Twitter/X will let people you've blocked see your posts
Twitter/X’s plan to let people you’ve blocked still view your public posts, while continuing to block their ability to reply or interact, is sparking debate over what “blocking” should mean on a largely public platform. Some argue the old model was always security theater—anyone could log out or use an alt account—so aligning behavior with reality is clearer and may reduce UX confusion. Others counter that even imperfect visibility limits add meaningful friction against harassment, stalking, brigading, and ad targeting, and see the change as prioritizing engagement, outrage, and advertiser reach over user safety and control.
What Is Changing (per thread)
- Blocked accounts will still be unable to reply, quote, or DM, but will be able to view the blocker’s public posts while logged in.
- Several commenters note that today you can already work around a block via alts or (sometimes) logged‑out views, though X’s logged‑out experience is now heavily restricted.
Arguments Supporting the Change
- Public posts are, by definition, public; trying to hide them from specific users is seen as “security theater” that’s easily bypassed.
- Current behavior gives users a misleading sense of safety and adds confusing, inconsistent UX (“can’t see while logged in, can via another account”).
- Some argue this clarifies that X is a broadcast medium, more like shouting in a public square than talking at a private table.
- A few like that it prevents “weaponized blocking” (blocking to get the last word or to secretly slander people who can’t see the accusations).
- One view: blocking should primarily be “I don’t want to see you / interact with you,” not “you may not see my public speech.”
Arguments Opposing the Change / Safety Concerns
- Many see blocking as a harassment‑reduction tool: hiding posts and adding friction makes it harder for stalkers, brigades, and “pile‑ons” to organize.
- Even imperfect friction works; most harassers won’t bother with alts or incognito. Removing it disproportionately harms victims vs. determined abusers.
- Concerns for targets of domestic abuse, stalking, or marginalized groups who rely on blocking to keep abusers out of their “local public.”
- Some argue this undercuts the “restraining‑order‑like” function of blocking and caters to trolls and dog‑pilers.
Debate Over What Blocking “Should” Mean
- One camp: blocking = self‑protection and interaction control only; visibility of public posts shouldn’t be affected.
- Another camp: blocking = the right to exclude specific people from one’s audience, even for public content.
- Disagreement over whether this strengthens or weakens echo chambers.
Speculated Motives for X
- Increase engagement via outrage by exposing people to content from those they’ve blocked (or at least letting blockees keep monitoring targets).
- Make advertisers harder to “block away.”
- Simplify infra / avoid expensive per‑view block checks (some speculate about database or compute savings).
- Personal/ego theories about leadership being widely blocked; others counter that a private “god mode” would be easier if that were the goal.
- Some suggest alignment with AI training or future product directions; others find those theories incoherent.
Comparisons to Other Platforms & UX
- Reddit and Facebook have strong, sometimes confusing, bidirectional blocks that can hide whole subtrees of conversation.
- Discord and others often treat blocking as one‑way “ear plugging,” not audience control.
- Bluesky is highlighted for strong, “nuclear” blocking; Mastodon and fediverse praised for smaller, more civil communities.
- Many complain that X overall is more toxic, bot‑ridden, and outrage‑driven since the acquisition; others say they now enjoy it more with careful curation and heavy use of block/mute.