If you read what you are arguing here out loud to yourself, it is immediately obvious why this "workaround" is a scary-bad precedent to set.
In order to view official communications from an elected official (i.e. the president of the united states), some citizens must "just" open an incognito window in order to work around the fact that the President of the United States blocked them from viewing official communication!
Go ahead, say that out loud to yourself! It is what some folks are arguing is okay. What kind of dystopian nightmare slippery slope path to hell is that shit? How more people aren't terrified of the precent allowing such a thing to occur is beyond me.
Saying it is okay that citizens have to work around government instituted blocks in order to hear from their elected officials. That is complete bollocks. "Shithole countries" with "shithole governments" pull bullshit stunts like blocking citizens access to official communication. I'd like to think America aspires to be better than that.
Separating the 2 would solve this conflict.
At the same time though, if you think opening an incognito window is too much of a workaround for viewing public communications, what do you call just about every interaction with the government that is much more painful.
I wish every interaction with the government was as painless as opening an incognito window.
Especially the convoluted system we are required to use to file taxes. It's 1000x more convoluted and time consuming, and that is a requirement just to not be illegal.
They still can do that. This ruling does not say he can't mute people (prevent himself from seeing any of their posts). The ruling says that he can't block people (prevent the entire world from seeing their replies to his posts).
This is also probably moot since verified accounts reportedly have even better options for filtering out messages than normal users.
Verified accounts don't. We have an extra tab to view only notifications from other verified users, but that's it.
If you have a large volume of notifications (e.g. a tweet goes viral), they give you a modal to prompt you to set up filters, but AFAIK those filters aren't limited to verified users. A non-verified user would still get that modal, which is just pointing you towards features already in the Settings page.
Source: am verified on Twitter, and also have had tweets popular enough to trigger that modal.
> They can just open an incognito window. They aren't really blocked from viewing his tweets.
What if your local DMV tells a black citizen to go to some other DMV and get a driving manual ?
Secondly, if you are an ordinary person and I retweet your every tweet calling you a moron you might consider it harassment and block me but public officials do not have such luxury. It is a very fundamental feature of American democracy to call your president an idiot. He can't claim harassment there.
> What if your local DMV tells a black citizen to go to some other DMV and get a driving manual ?
Not sure the relevance to this discussion. What you are describing is racism, not denying access to problematic individuals.
I think the point here is there is no black and white answer, it falls on a spectrum. The "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is fine if you are a small mom and pop shop but not as you get bigger. Especially if you provide critical infrastructure or government function. Not sure it can be codified in an absolute law though.
By saying you can't block someone the judge is also saying you can't ignore someone who is harassing you.
Anyone who isn't logged in can still see it. They can just open an incognito window. They aren't really blocked from viewing his tweets.
It's unfortunate that the 2 are tied together into the same function. This would be a much simpler and less controversial issue then.