Why do you care?
I can care for two reasons: I find it repugnant to remove an avenue of communication before someone deserved to have it taken away,
You aren't entitled to it. Not socially, not in the world, not in social media.
and I'm frequently getting blocked by the people I want to hear from.
If you just want to "hear from" them, just view their feed on the web when you are logged I. Or create an account that doesn't follow anyone, just uses lists to aggregate feeds. There is no barrier to read-only access to public feeds.
Anyone can make a block list and share it via blocktogether.org's tool.
Anyone can (as in are physically capable) attempt to kill me or just scream that I fuck children or XYZ. It doesn't mean they should.
That's the old Gameragate sense of proportion. Well done. Those are totally comparable. Nazi lists, amirite.
I can decide I never want to be followed by anyone name Dan and programmatically add users with "dan" in their name to block list that anyone can also use. How is any of this someone else's concern that they get sweaty about it. Except Dan, because fuck Dan.
What about ShoDAN or DANkmemelord420 or DANceswithwolves? And what about B1gD@N or SUUUUPER_DAAAAN? And what would be the issue with people who are named Dan anyways?
Pretty simple to grab those with a regex expression.
You may want to listen to strangers, but they are under no obligation to freely facilitate that.
Then why would they keep a public twitter?
No one owes an explanation for that. There are advantages to a public feed, such as allowing retweets, searchability, and such that easily justify a public feed with curated lists. Many people do this, and have done this since before GamerGate woke up cranky and threw a tantrum because they can't deal with the complexities of the adult world.
Or if your logged in on an alt account. It's the question that an entire step has to be added to dissemination of information to me that isn easily accessible to the overwhelming majority of the public.
Again, you aren't entitled. You can ask politely to be unblocked or accept that another person has no obligation to you.
Any effort to block noise affects all noise equally. If there was some sort of rig that could only selectively pick out people of a given demographic, plus make it to where only the correct people can even hear you, would be in the realm of science fiction. But the ethical implications are fascinating.
You seem to have missed the point.
Not really. It's a communications medium that different people use in different ways. Thinking you are worth being communicated to, or that you should be able to communicate to complete strangers, is self-worth.
That's pathetic if any of person's self-worth is tied up in whether strangers have blocked you on social media.
Kind of, although their new "qualify filter" is undoubtably more sophisticated than that. Which is understandable when comparing the work of one or two people against a billion dollar company with thousands of engineers.
See, the problem with it is that it actually is fair and works. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/31/this-is-how-twitters-new-anti-harassment-filter-works-surprise-it-works-really-well/ It's not just based on the metric of just who is followed.
Great, everyone is glad to get more sophisticated tools. As I said.