Twitter’s New Direct Messages

[Found this online to "symbolize" Twitter and their Direct Message]

After an interesting Twitter direct message exchange on August 11^th – today (August 12^th) I read where they eliminated the 140 character limit.

And, I must admit, that is a good thing. It’ll make communicating much better – it’s hard to fully explain a point or idea in 140 characters. So, I am definitely for that. In fact, I think it is the best idea since being able to add pictures to tweets without a third (3^rd) party client. Oh, how fancy I sound here. Yes, I am kidding.

Since they’re always working on something (those types never rest), I’m also asking Twitter for the added ability to choose who we can get direct messages from. Just because we follow someone and they follow us doesn’t mean we want to have that option. Is this suggestion based on the incident from August 11^th?

Absolutely.

There are times I think the privilege is abused. It should be only to communicate private information such as email addresses, phone numbers, and addresses between followers (I.E: win a contest need to provide details to company). Or, if the people are friends – private and sensitive information exchanges.

In the manner it was used (please read this blog: Politics and Twitter (oh, and other social media too) ... ) – that is an abuse. Pure and simple. It was, at its best … baiting, if not harassment. I did file a report – however that decision was well … I’ll get to that.

Or, Twitter could have a “this person sent you a direct message – do you wish to access it?” option. Give a preview and choose to accept it. Then have a future option to “ignore” from the person. Of course they can give you a chance to change it at any time.

While I get social media does have some sort of “all ye who enter give up privacy” expectation – there should always be a way to limit the harassment and unwanted attention. Of the social media sites I deal with … here’s how we can control privacy (for those who aren’t aware):

Twitter – either public or private (no way to limit who can see posts; thought that was the point of lists – not so)

Facebook – can have MULTIPLE options: public, private (only me); certain people; people tagged; lists; friends

Instagram – either public or private (no way to limit)

Since I don’t use Google + (G +) anymore … that doesn’t apply. Though it worked a bit like Facebook and Twitter combined. People could add you to circles without permission like on Twitter – if you’re “public”, they can follow you without permission. Though in that case, you can block them. Or you can do what I’ve been known to do – block, wait, unblock. Acts like an un-follow. Most of the time it works.

But, like Facebook, G + had the ability to create privacy settings for posts: public, private (only me); circles. Your circles could be just family only, or everyone in your circle.

On Facebook, for messages – you have two options: friends only (which can complicate things) or everyone.

To be honest, until Twitter changes to find a way to better limit harassment and bullying – I will continue to interact with people on Facebook. There, I have a select list of people I post most things to.

While I appreciate all my friends, I don’t want to inundate them with stuff they’re not interested in. And, I will admit I can “over-share” quite a bit – even my vacations have nearly 700+ photos involved. After having the “friends” option for sharing backfire more times than I can count – I’d really rather just have a select list and leave it at that. It’s less problem and less drama.

If they don’t understand – then I guess we’re really not friends.

And, while with Twitter you can file a complaint – the officials can sometimes determine some of the content “was not in violation” as they did in my report with the person who harassed me in a direct message.

That’s why the ability to accept or reject direct messages from people we don’t know might be a better way to “control the amount of interaction”.

Just an idea.