Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail.
On Oct. 16, the social-media platform X, once (and still) known as Twitter, announced “a change to how the block function works.” “Soon,” per the announcement, “[i]f your posts are set to public, accounts you have blocked will be able to view them, but they will not be able to engage (like, reply, repost, etc.).” The stated purpose is to protect blocked individuals from malicious gossip they’d have no recourse to address.
Did anyone buy the safety-measure pretext? Quite the contrary: “You might as well just say you support stalking,” one user wrote. “Huge day for stalkers everywhere.” “X out the women.” Many have threatened to leave the platform, and some are taking their social-media usage elsewhere.
An image began to form of the type of person who’d be delighted by X’s new blocking rules. He was a he, for starters: a stalker, or, at least, a persistent reply guy. Posts – some quite funny – critiqued the policy. My favourite was author Jacob Silverman’s: “they’re calling it the ‘I must see my ex-wife’s posts’ function.” Another post went viral, captioning Berthold Woltze’s 1874 painting The Irritating Gentleman with, “And now you can’t even block me on Twitter…”
As a woman familiar with this sort of behaviour, online and off-, I do get it. But I’m cynical about how much a change in how blocking works would matter on that front. A public social-media account can only block other accounts, not other people, making it possible for blocked users to just lurk from a separate account. Realistically, blocking was never a viable way of getting to post one’s whereabouts without an unhinged ex finding out. The quips about how the move is just meant to allow X owner Elon Musk to personally view posts from people who block him are clever, until you remember that he too presumably has the tech savvy to create an alt account.
If safety is your priority, you can lock your account, making it available only to followers you’ve approved. But this is useless if you’re looking to meet new people or reach new audiences for any personal or professional reason. And even locked accounts get screenshotted.
Here’s the real problem with the new blocking policy: Showing people posts they’re blocked from engaging with will prod otherwise reasonable people into unhealthy situations.
A word on what “blocking” means in this context. Social-media users block one another all the time, for many reasons unrelated to deterring obsessives. Maybe you’ve blocked someone because they made one annoying post, or were rude to your friend, or are associated with someone you dislike. Maybe you block everyone with certain politics. Or maybe you hit “block” by accident. It is an entirely normal part of online life to be blocked by people you not only have never harassed, but have never interacted with or even heard of.
But under the new order, you might come across a funny or wise post, reply in good faith or even with praise, and then learn that this person has blocked you. That would be maddening. Who wants that?
Which leads me to my theory. It’s not exes who benefit from this change; it’s X. The new block function will raise blood pressure – and thus drive engagement.
To be confronted with someone’s posts and the fact that they blocked you would feel like being taunted, even if it was by no means intended that way. As it currently stands, someone blocking you is a prompt to think about that person less, if indeed you knew who they were to begin with. It is a tranquility- and sanity-preserving system.
Muting, a function that already exists, allows for plausible deniability. Maybe someone didn’t get around to your doubtless brilliant retort because they were busy, not because they’ve hidden your posts because they think you’re a harmless bore. All the new form of blocking amounts to is a form of muting where the muted individual knows what’s up.
The new approach to blocking is in keeping with the site’s ethos since Mr. Musk’s takeover. X changed the meaning of the blue “verified” checkmark from indicating a media worker or public figure, to showing that someone paid to use the site, a site that was once free. (The checkmark is now used in a confusing mix of the two ways.) The gist was a power shift from cultural elites (or reputable experts, depending on your outlook) to anyone with a few bucks to spare and a desire to be heard – and, perhaps, a chip on their shoulder. Moreover, the platform now incentivizes controversy-courting, paying its “premium” users for traffic generation, by whichever trollish means necessary.
The blocking policy stokes paranoia and resentment. Profitable for X, no doubt – but bad for users, and for the tenor, such as it ever was, of online discourse.