This week Twitter changed its “blocking” feature so that people who were blocked by users could re-engage with users who had blocked them. After an intense reaction from users, including the animated #RestoreTheBlock hashtag-Twitter reversed the change, saying that “you will never want[ed] introduce features at the cost of making users feel less secure.”
What just happened and what can other companies learn from this? This may have been a recent incident, but it is not an isolated incident: just look at the delay of Twitter (and other social networks) in implementing a report abuse buttonFor example. These types of features are not just abstract; They have a concrete impact on individual users and the health of online communities in general.
First, the basics: In case you missed it, Twitter has a feature called “block.” If you block someone on Twitter, that user will no longer be able to interact with you. But Twitter changed the blocking feature to essentially mute someone, which meant that users would not see the blocked person’s updates, but could still follow, favorite, and retweet. tweetsetc.
The change punished users, not harassers. That’s why truth analogies in humor ranged from things like vocation to the police about an attack and was told, “Well, what were you thinking going out in public?” to intimidation someone in a classroom and then having the teacher offer earplugs to the bullied student (that was one of mine). In short: ridiculous.
In Forbes, Kashmir Hill said Twitter “stopped monitoring what users do on the site.” But when you run a community, you can’t just quit and let your members fight among themselves. When you start a community, you make a promise: we will take care of you. Abdicate that responsibility and your community will eventually falter.
Things turned out well in the end, this time. But these are my conclusions about what companies should consider and do differently in the future, especially when they change features that affect user security.
#### Derek Powazek
##### About
[Derek Powazek](http://powazek.com) has been creating online community sites since 1995. He is the editor-in-chief of [Tonx](http://tonx.org); the creator of [Fray](http://fray.com); the author of “Design for Community”; and consultant in [Fertile Medium](http://fertilemedium.com). Follow him on Twitter @fraying.
You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game
Many Twitter members have spent years adding idiots, haters, and abusers to a carefully crafted block list. This ability created an agreement with Twitter: “I don’t want these people to interact with me again.”
When Twitter changed that agreement without notice, it meant that all members of that blocked group could suddenly interact with you again. Even worse, when those blocked people interacted with you, Twitter hide of you This meant that if someone was stalking you, your friends could see it… but you couldn’t.
Now, if Twitter had added a new feature called “mute” that worked the same way as the new block, along with the current block, no one would have complained. What Twitter tried to do is change blocking (a tool that cuts links) for silence (a filter). The fact that many third-party Twitter clients have created their own muting tools is proof that it is necessary. Twitter should still add it natively without removing the existing blocking tool.
