This entry by Derek Powazek got me thinking.
The services provided by Twitter make it a good example for studying social interactions. Twitter lets you do a few things: Produce and consume content. You have control over the content you produce, and the channels you consume.
The issue Derek seems to have is monitoring @replies. Anyone can send an @reply to anyone they want. It is easy to carry on short, pointed conversations in public with @replies. For a moment, let’s break down what might be happening here.
Derek’s proposed solution of blocking annoying @repliers falls down in a few places. Blocking is a two-way street. No longer can I see the offending person’s content. No longer can they see my content. We are blocked from even realizing one another exists. It is the real life equivalent of walking away from an annoying stranger and forcing them to do the same. All you really care about is that you no longer have to deal with that person.
This forcefulness is probably where many people start to take offense at blocking. Depending on the context, I can imagine being offended if I made an off-handed comment that resulted in someone blocking me completely. Perception is a decidedly one-sided game.
Twitter provides an interface for selective attention with lists. Filtering with lists is a huge feature. At any given time, I follow around 230 people. This number only works for me because I’ve created several lists. It would be simply unmanageable to follow so many people otherwise. Without lists, I’d hardly manage following 75 people.
I don’t always care about what everyone in my stream has to say. Sometimes I’m in the mood for “99 Ways To Make Your Websites Sparkle” links. Usually, this is not the case. The point is, when I’m in the mood, I can open the content nozzle full blast. Lists give me more control over which content I consume.