You've never coded before and it shows. That's ok, I'll give it a shot to be as brief as possible.
Understand that code as dense as twatter that handles billions of tweets worldwide, seamlessly, is massive. In layman terms, it's like reading the tax code where everything affects everything: take a part out and it completely wrecks other areas. Same with coding: the links/references to other parts, if just deleted, would crash the whole platform.
Point: it takes time to write additional code to bridge/repair chunks that were intertwined without crashing everything. On a similar, but lesser degree, This is why "patches" come out to fix bugs in video games.
Conclusion: it's being worked on, AFAIK, but it takes time.
While this is 100% true it begs the question: Why was this feature non-existent in the first place? From a customer service standpoint it is certainly (long term) more efficient to handle "Wtf is up with my tweets not showing up" questions to have the process automated with a simple, visible flag on the end user's side.
The fact that it handles billions of tweets does not mean that the code is massive. In fact, it probably means it's as compact and efficient as possible.
And sure, you don't just pull out major chunks of code and expect it to continue working, but disabling access to a feature, especially if that feature simply adds a flag to an account, is rarely as difficult as you are making it out to be.
void ShadowBanAccount(account a) {
// a.isShadowBanned = true;
}
Potentially true, but your example, while fact for low end uses does not mean it is that simple in practice for massive platforms like Twatter. Reasons I gave the patch for video games reference.
To wit: how many times has a patch crashed a game or caused other problems within the game because they overlooked something or removed entirely? Countless. Gamers put up with it daily across all platforms and all game genres. Now imagine what would happen if Twatter crashed.
While input is appreciated, please do not dumb it down as to be irrelevant. It isn't. Remember who created things like Twatter and Facebook, why they did, and for what purpose. The real creators, not those used as figureheads.
I have coded before. Removing the ability to shadowban people is easy. The point of shadowbanning is nefarious. Ban the person without alerting them they have been banned. So they don't make a fuss. It is wrong and should be eliminated.
Well then you have my apologies as the comment alluded to not having experience by the flippant nature, and responded thusly in order to enlighten. Mea Cullpa.
I would think if a person has to appeal and then the banning can be removed on that account, like flipping a switch….Twitter can flip the switch for everyone shadow banned. Because quite frankly after what we’ve seen Twitter’s former practices have been anything but justified or fair. Anyway, the code doesn’t sound like it would be messed with and it sounds like someone had to flip the banning on.
In other words, Shadowbanning is still a thing. New boss, same as the old boss.
You've never coded before and it shows. That's ok, I'll give it a shot to be as brief as possible.
Understand that code as dense as twatter that handles billions of tweets worldwide, seamlessly, is massive. In layman terms, it's like reading the tax code where everything affects everything: take a part out and it completely wrecks other areas. Same with coding: the links/references to other parts, if just deleted, would crash the whole platform.
Point: it takes time to write additional code to bridge/repair chunks that were intertwined without crashing everything. On a similar, but lesser degree, This is why "patches" come out to fix bugs in video games.
Conclusion: it's being worked on, AFAIK, but it takes time.
While this is 100% true it begs the question: Why was this feature non-existent in the first place? From a customer service standpoint it is certainly (long term) more efficient to handle "Wtf is up with my tweets not showing up" questions to have the process automated with a simple, visible flag on the end user's side.
Rhetorical question, really. 😀
I'm assuming the vast majority of those fired were useless people.
The fact that it handles billions of tweets does not mean that the code is massive. In fact, it probably means it's as compact and efficient as possible.
And sure, you don't just pull out major chunks of code and expect it to continue working, but disabling access to a feature, especially if that feature simply adds a flag to an account, is rarely as difficult as you are making it out to be.
void ShadowBanAccount(account a) { // a.isShadowBanned = true; }
Potentially true, but your example, while fact for low end uses does not mean it is that simple in practice for massive platforms like Twatter. Reasons I gave the patch for video games reference.
To wit: how many times has a patch crashed a game or caused other problems within the game because they overlooked something or removed entirely? Countless. Gamers put up with it daily across all platforms and all game genres. Now imagine what would happen if Twatter crashed.
While input is appreciated, please do not dumb it down as to be irrelevant. It isn't. Remember who created things like Twatter and Facebook, why they did, and for what purpose. The real creators, not those used as figureheads.
I have coded before. Removing the ability to shadowban people is easy. The point of shadowbanning is nefarious. Ban the person without alerting them they have been banned. So they don't make a fuss. It is wrong and should be eliminated.
Well then you have my apologies as the comment alluded to not having experience by the flippant nature, and responded thusly in order to enlighten. Mea Cullpa.
Cheers mate.
If they do not have top level ability to do this, then they have spaghetti code.
I would think if a person has to appeal and then the banning can be removed on that account, like flipping a switch….Twitter can flip the switch for everyone shadow banned. Because quite frankly after what we’ve seen Twitter’s former practices have been anything but justified or fair. Anyway, the code doesn’t sound like it would be messed with and it sounds like someone had to flip the banning on.
True. I answered in presumption it needed to be removed entirely since that is the general consensus the majority of peoples gripes are.
Maybe it's retrospective. ie. Maybe he'll flag up previous shadowbanning which is now cancelled.