> What's the difference between 10 people telling you to kill yourself and just 1, because the other 9 got blocked? Is that not still an unacceptable level of harassment?
"We can do something, but it won't be completely effective, so we shouldn't do anything."
What's the use in vaccination? After all, it doesn't completely eliminate disease. Unless used very consistently for a lifetime.
Well then what exactly are you saying? From what I can see, it's either: "what Twitter is doing is useless so they should do nothing" or "banning people is bad because they'll continue to be abusive". Neither of these seems like a good argument to make.
I'm saying a "safe space" on a public (as in anyone can sign up without being vetted in some way) online service is not possible. Full stop. I never said twitter shouldn't do anything and I never said banning people is bad. To come to those conclusions based on my comments shows either a lack of reading comprehension skills or simply approaching them with your own biased predisposition that anyone who disagrees with you in some way disagrees with you in every way (an unfortunate and disgustingly common occurrence these days).
I'm suggesting to people who use these services that they should tamper their expectations about what can be done. Twitter will never be a "safe space". Can it be safer with some effort on their end? Maybe, but don't ever expect it to be a platform free from judgement about the beliefs you share, nor will it ever be free from those who would threaten or harass you for having those beliefs.
> What's the difference between 10 people telling you to kill yourself and just 1, because the other 9 got blocked? Is that not still an unacceptable level of harassment?
"We can do something, but it won't be completely effective, so we shouldn't do anything."
What's the use in vaccination? After all, it doesn't completely eliminate disease. Unless used very consistently for a lifetime.