Twitter users block others for various reasons, based on their personal experiences, preferences, or interactions on the platform. Here’s a breakdown of common reasons, grounded in user behavior and insights from available data:

1 Harassment or Abuse: Users often block accounts that send harassing, threatening, or abusive messages. This includes personal attacks, trolling, or hate speech targeting their identity, beliefs, or appearance.

2 Spam or Bots: Accounts that flood timelines with spam, repetitive ads, or automated bot-like behavior (e.g., mass-following or posting irrelevant links) are frequently blocked to declutter feeds.

3 Unwanted Interactions: Some users block others for unwanted replies, mentions, or DMs, especially if they feel the interaction is intrusive, argumentative, or off-topic.

4 Differing Opinions: In polarized discussions, users may block those with opposing views to avoid heated debates or to curate a more agreeable timeline, especially during controversial events.

5 Privacy and Safety: Blocking is used to protect personal information or limit visibility from strangers, ex-partners, or accounts that seem suspicious or overly curious.

6 Content Overload: Users might block accounts posting excessive or irrelevant content, like constant self-promotion or low-quality posts, to keep their feed manageable.

7 Past Conflicts: Personal grudges or negative past interactions, even offline, can lead to blocking to prevent further contact or to maintain emotional distance.

8 Mass Blocking: Some users employ tools or lists to block accounts en masse, often based on shared followers of controversial figures or specific keywords, to preemptively avoid unwanted engagement.

From posts on X, users often mention blocking for “peace of mind,” to escape “toxic” interactions, or to stop seeing content they find annoying or irrelevant. For example, a user might block someone for repeatedly quote-tweeting them with snarky comments or for flooding their mentions with unsolicited advice. Data from web sources, like Reddit discussions, suggests blocking is also a way to enforce boundaries, especially for public figures or those with large followings who face constant scrutiny.

If you have a specific scenario or user in mind, I can analyze their X profile or posts for more context on why they might block others. Let me know!

All you have to be able to say is I can send you $50 worth of bitcoin. That’s all that’s required nothing else is needed to make bitcoin super useful to everybody. The idea that everybody has to understand bitcoin in order to use it is just crazy and they don’t apply to thinking to anything else.

I’m happy I could help have a nice day !

Asking this question is the first step to find the answer. The next step is to say, “what can I do about this“?

Then you have to describe the problem correctly. That means describing the problem at the root, not at the symptom level.

If you do this, describing the problem at the root level, then you won’t make me steps by creating Heath Robinson answers that can be destroyed at the whim of a handful of people who have the ultimate power over you.

Part of this is not seeking validation or repentance for the bad things you’ve done to tens of millions of people. Everything you do must be not only efficacious but proven to be efficacious.

A necessary part of this is the ability to make decisions for yourself based only on logic and the facts and not outsource your thinking to people who are in every way inferior to you.

It also means being able to accept unsatisfactory answers like this.

“Important: Google is locking down Android.

Starting Sept 2026, every app — even outside the Play Store — must come from a verified developer.

No more anonymous sideloads. No quick comebacks for malware gangs.

First up: Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand.”

And no indefinite access for illegal and anonymous messaging apps, especially ones with the scary hacker chic graphic design.

Protocols have no utility without apps to leverage them.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want; the facts remain the same. You can’t have a global scale permissionless ecosystem without the explicit permission of Apple and Google.

And if your aim is to change the world, you need global scale adoption to do it. That means unfettered access to be able to have your tools installed on the phones of anyone who wants that tool.

This is true also of bitcoin.

Bitcoin can’t change the world unless easy access to it is made available to billions of users.

Running away from this fact doesn’t make it go away; this fact must be confronted head on and the problem solved.

The only question is this: are you contributing to the solution of the problem or not? Or are you acting as a safety valve giving encouragement to people who don’t really understand the problem, so that they feel good today and divert their energy to something which cannot possibly win in the end and, leave us in a better world.

https://thehackernews.com/2025/08/google-to-verify-all-android-developers.html

If the method of payment is not disconnected to the “handing over” of the good or service, you are de anonymised, and as you’ve seen, the State is not averse to requesting mass dumps of records of completely innocent people.

100% CORRECT. And the question is begged, “How do people get Bitcoin anonymously?”, a key question left out of the equation. Leaving the distribution of bitcoin to exchanges is suicidal….do don’t do it!

I’m saying throwing away recognition won’t solve the problem.

Software developers don’t do it for nebulous “recognition” they do it to solve problems. Hiding away won’t solve anything; it’s hiding, it’s running away from the problem, it’s being a coward and refusing to solve a problem head on.

What’s worse is having the means to help solve these problems and then refusing to act.

That’s why the world is teetering on tyranny.

You’re on the right path directionally.

This is the “hoodie anon, hideaway culture”. People should not have to hide their identities in order to swipe software.

Human collaboration in person and in the open should not suffer because the State doesn’t like the code you write.

Having your name associated with the tools you write is not about “recognition” it’s about free association in a free country.

GM FRENZ.

The Durov case and many other reasons are why companies avoid basing themselves in France. No Social Media platform will seek to headquarter in Paris. It’s unthinkable.

And the French government can’t go after Andrew Torba who runs GAB because he’s an American operating GAB in America. If GAB launches end to end encrypted chat or anything the Z French government doesn’t like, there’s nothing they can do about it.

The solution to “government overreach” is not building systems that can’t be cracked or stopped; they’re persecuting Durov without any proper cause. If your name is associated with a tool that the French government can’t stop or crack or track, they will come after you. This isn’t about right and wrong, following rules or logic.

This is not about technical capabilities or clever architecture, “frenz”; this is about computer illiterate tyrants who can’t understand detail or scale or ethics, and if they can, don’t care, because they want to sacrifice Durov to scare everyone.

The next iteration in this is to criminalise the authoring and distribution of unlicensed privacy software. The first part, distribution, will stop ordinary people from accessing Telegram or any tool that keeps messages private. This is easily done through Google Play and the Apple App Store. The second will totally dry up the developer pool of people working on privacy software, because none of them want any trouble. Oh, and GitHub will ban your repo, frenz.

Before you write “Hello World” in your new tool, you will need to have a Developer’s License before starting work, even in the conceptual stage. It will be illegal for you to share any design, algorithm or outline without both you and the idea recipient having a current Crypto Software Development License.

If you think this is completely impossible, please see Bernstein v. US Department of Justice https://medium.com/swlh/why-america-cant-regulate-bitcoin-8c77cee8d794

The answer to this is not “build your way out of it”, obviously.

The answer is to first curb the power of the state to persecute software development and distribution before you write “Hello World”. You do that by making the State smaller. You make the state smaller by instantiating sound money. That means globalising Bitcoin.

And how do you “globalise Bitcoin?”

10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1…..

And in case you didn’t know, rote recitation of catchphrases and infantile feel good gibberish will not stop the persecution of Durov, remove KYC in Bitcoin or stop the emergence of Crypto Developer Licensing.

https://x.com/durov/status/1959676036507205649?s=61&t=eyjJ5IvKiAtPIDSBRekpmA

You are conflating terms and misusing English. You even do it in the question itself when you say “possession of the seed phrase”.

You can understand that if you steal a car, you don’t own that car; similarly knowing a secret doesn’t mean you own it.

The problem here is that if you start using the correct language, and accurately, your whole mental framework that’s been handed to you to contextualise bitcoin is destroyed.

No Bitcoin user owns UTXOs. UTXOs are database entries that your private key can be used on to make a signature using someone else’s public key. All UTXO’s are copied in tens of thousands of places; by no stretch of the imagination does anyone own them.

This is like saying because you have a copy of “The Godfather” on your hard drive that you own the copy. You have a copy, you don’t own the film. It’s exactly the same with Bitcoin. You control your private keys that are strings of characters. That string can be used in a mathematical function to produce a mathematical result. Information works differently to physical matter.

No one “owns” math or any string of characters; exclusive use of a secret string of characters is not “ownership”.

https://medium.com/@beautyon_/the-bitlicense-is-a-bad-idea-that-must-die-cb413c076d85

Bitcoin is special because it makes it trivially easy to conflate and superimpose ownership analogies on mathematically generated strings that have utility in a single context. Normal people need analogies to interface with almost everything in modern life, especially where software is concerned.

“Self Custody” is a multi layered analogy set, designed to help you understand how a Private Key works in the Bitcoin context without referring at any time to math or signing processes or the chain of blocks, or databases other people’s Public Keys or anything to do with the actual processes involved with who gets to sign messages and their in context meaning.

Bitcoin is never owned; it’s an entry in a massively replicated public database.

Bitcoin is never sent or received. It is reflected in the public database.

Bitcoin is not money. It is a database.

None of these absolute facts have any bearing on Bitcoin’s utility; analogies are used to help you understand and accept bitcoin as a full replacement for fiat currency and banking services.

Without this contextual help, no member of the public would accept Bitcoin, and in the end, if people can’t use Bitcoin without the need to understand it, it will never change the world at scale.

“Ownership” and “self custody” are analogies and not descriptions of process, and should absolutely cannot be the basis of any real understanding and never the basis of legislation.

Mischaracterising Bitcoin by analogising is commonplace which is why, even this week, I had to spend an hour in front of a panel of compliance lawyers explaining that addresses in bitcoin wallets on iPhones are not at all like bank accounts.

The toxic analogising that’s mistaken for reality is everywhere, and it distorts the market, because the people who build businesses must contend with computer illiterates who have been grossly mislead by advertising copy.

Imagine building something that no one is using, and then building something on top of that even less people can use unless it's under the most strict conditions, that no ordinary person will tolerate under any circumstances... and then thinking.

"THIS IS GOING TO RAWK!"

No, it's not going to rawk. It's going to die a slow death after the initial excitement in a small number of people wears off, unless a radical change happens...whatever that may look like.

And even as it's launched, all people can think of saying in these place is, "GM FRENZ", when the world is on the brink of WW3 and events unimaginable are commonplace.

This is a picture of the failure of a generation with the greatests tools and frameworks in the history of mankind at their fingertips...and all they can come up with is, "GM FRENZ".

This is the generation that could kill the Federal Reserve and usher in a golden age of financial liberty, flexibility, and absolute monetary justice. They could still kill it...well...at least the ones who are awake.

Instead, they set up strawman problems to solve, the solution of which do not result in the world changing, solutions designed to completely avoid confrontation of any kind with any body.

And herein is the key. There are people with the super powers required to fix problems but who abhor confrontation so much, they are paralysed in the one area that is a prerequisite to making global change

The ability to make decisions themselves.

All the great technologists have one thing in common; they are so convinced of their principles and solutions that they have absolutely no hesitation to tell anyone about how and what they think about any subject; in fact, they fall over themselves to do so at every opportunity.

If you can't articulate what you believe, if you are paralysed by indecision, if you are a a disinterested and deluded coward, you can't help anyone, and the powers you have are nullified by your low character.

Meanwhile...

The tiny number of people who don't suffer from these character flaws, and who have the means, are able to do things that change the world. Even if after they do that, they turn to the Dark Side, if they've left something behind that is good, perhaps that is all they were born for; that one single good thing that changed everything...like Dr. Richard Daystrom, and the Duotronics breakthrough that profoundly changed computer science forever.

The time you're living through is without precedent. On many fronts, fundamental changes to how man interacts with man are at the fingertips of every person of every class. How could you shrink from this challenge? How could you not see yourself in the rôle of an active participant bound for glory (Excalibur final scene: Arthur kills Mordred).

How can you not...get this?

You've woken up on the shore of your subconscious. You don't know where you are, how you got there, why you're there, how to get back to the real world...but several levels up, the real world is there, and so is your real life, and everyone who is really alive.

PROTIP: That's where you want to be. Not in a dream world where you're deceiving yourself that you're living; the real world is where life is, not deep down there on that beach.

“Self Sovereignty”; dead giveaway.

Imagine someone telling you that you should “break” your iPhone so you can run some “weird” software. You would instantly refuse, because you just paid $1,000 for a shiny new iPhone.

That was the exact proposition on offer. No normal person Jailbrake’d their iPhone it was for hackers, risk takers and tweeters not users who just wanted the best phone ever.

By doing this, you have first hand experience that “your” iPhone can actually become your iPhone.

Most people who use an iPhone have no idea about any of this, and will never understand it. They have to be accessed by a route that doesn’t require understanding.

This can be done, believe it or not. It’s how Public Key Cryptography reached billions of people without a single descriptive word being written about it; it simply works in the background keeping everyone safe.

This has to happen in bitcoin. Believing otherwise is foolishness, futile and time wasting.

You’re right about the terminology, and this is why I’ve been saying for years that no one should call bitcoin “money”.

Where you are wrong however, is to say that “ownership” changes, which is categorically not true, and also, there is no such thing as “self custody” in bitcoin either.

And there are no “Bitcoin Wallets” either [SPOON BOY IMAGE]

Nomenclature shapes people’s perception; it doesn’t change reality. Unfortunately, even intelligent people don’t understand this, and demonstrate surface thinking as their primary entry point in almost all matters.

For those of you alive in the early days of the iPhone, you may remember a tool called "Cydia".

This tool was in fact the first "App Store" for iPhone.

Cydia was written by Jay Freeman (Saurik) in 2008 and was for jailbroken iPhones.

It allowed users to install apps, tweaks, and modifications not available on Apple's App Store, all from developers without Apple's approval.

Jailbreaking your iPhone meant that you had essentially full control over it, including being able to run a root shell on it, no restrictions whatsoever; it was just like a UNIX machine in your hand.

Knowing this (and I've said it before) anyone interested in having an iPhone and Android ecosystem where users are transformed into owners of their devices, requires a new class of App Store not owned by Google or Apple, and that is very popular.

There are App Stores for Android other than Google, but they're not as popular as the Google Play Store, and that's not surprising at all, because no normal person is interested in it leaving the fenced area.

That being said, it should be possible with the proper marketing to create an ecosystem that can compete with the "Two Party State" of Google and Apple.

This would solve many of the problems caused by large companies run by people unconcerned by Ethics and user's rights and lives. In this new ecosystem, for example, it would not be possible to have a bitcoin wallet banned, or removed.

If all of this is true (and it is) then the question becomes why has no one picked up on the threat of App Store removal of Bitcoin Wallets, and why have they not acted to either create a new default App Store ecosystem or boosted an existing Alternative App Store ecosystem with a large cash injection?

There are plenty to choose from:

- Amazon Appstore

- APKMirror

- APKPure

- Aptoide

- F-Droid

- Huawei AppGallery

- Samsung Galaxy Store

- GetJar

- Uptodown

- SlideME

- Aurora Store

- AppBrain

- Mobogenie

- QooApp

- 9Apps

- Xiaomi GetApps

- Tencent MyApp

- Itch.io

- ACMarket

- TapTap

Obviously Huawei, Xiaomi, all China based stores sand Amazon can be excluded as alternatives, but what they demonstrate by existing is that alternative App Stores that potentially serve billions of people are possible to create, so why bother whining to Google when you can just build your own and solve the problem forever?

And you're even more without excuse if you already have access to billions of people through existing business and user relationships to jump start a new ecosystem.

Upon launch of this ecosystem, it would mean that every developer of Bitcoin Wallets for Android would be delisted from Google only to re-appear on the new "Liberty App Store Library" where they are published with the features the developers desire and used on terms acceptable to both user and developer.

How hard can it be?

One thing is for sure; simply complaining about Google trying to kill Bitcoin Wallets is not going to change anything.

And obviously every Android app developer would flock to this new ecosystem to publish their apps so that more people would download them. It would grow almost by itself.

As for the Apple App Store, well...I guess if they go through with banning Bitcoin Apps, if you want to use Bitcoin your own way, you have to get a 'Droid.

Sigh..."The price of freedom!"

This is exactly like banning SSL for all applications where the owner of the user's app isn't identified.

The French tried to impose this in the 1990s, but once SSL was everywhere, it was impossible for France to implement it, despite building a regulatory and storage framework to register all SSL private keys.

SSL keys can be generated at will almost instantly by anyone without any technical skill. It happens every time you install a browser or set up a server.

Sound familiar?

That's what happens when you download and open a Bitcoin Wallet. It's exactly the same in nature.

Now an absurd ban is proposed for Bitcoin wallets, and it's pretty obvious this would happen in the, "Then they fight you" stage.

This is why I've been harping on about spreading bitcoin everywhere as quickly as possible, so that it becomes a global default that cannot be revoked without killing the internets.

This is also why I've been working to re-contextualize bitcoin away from what people mistake it for to something more like what it actually is.

No one thinks SSL is "encryption"; they think it is "security". Similarly if people think bitcoin is money, then they will think about it as if it is money, as if you "receive" bitcoin, and all other money analogies.

If this false categorization by Google of Bitcoin wallets doesn't go through, the next attempt surely will. Unfortunately, people with power can't seem to understand long term strategic thinking in this area, despite the history of Public Key Encryption tool adoption being widely known.

A necessary prerequisite to bitcoin being everywhere is the distribution of it to billions of people. That's what we're doing at Azteco. When we succeed in doing this, bitcoin will be a common as SSL Certs in your browser.

And no, it will not be enough to simply build tools that use bitcoin; you can't use bitcoin without getting it, and that is the task many people simply run away from rather than confront head on.

Things that seem to be very large, very bad problems can be completely eliminated. Faketoshi is the most recent example, but there have been many others, like the RSA Munitions Export case. Bitcoin can win and come out unscathed.

It will take dedication to make it happen and people who can think for themselves and make up their own minds about what sort of future they want to be a part of building for mankind.

The bitcoin distribution problem is being effectively solved by Azteco, with 700m people being given access to bitcoin in a way that no real bitcoiner could possibly oppose.

It didn't take many people to solve the big problems; technical ones like Public Key Cryptography, PGP (Zimmerman), Bitcoin (Satoshi), BitTorrent (Bram Cohen) and many others. Your only question for yourself is this, "Am I a part of the solution or the problem?".

And if you think you can build a paralell society on App Store Apps that will help billions of people, you are completely delusional.

If App stores can ban Bitcoin wallets, they can ban your sneaky chat app, which, because it doesn't mediate bitcoin, can't change the world, and even if it could mediate bitcoin transactions, cant do so unless people can get bitcoin to use on it, and if they can, that will surely cause an App store ban, because it will be an "Unlicensed Bitcoin Wallet", however they want to define that.

At some point, as has been in the past, a problem must be solved directly. With SSL, it was the rapid proliferation of browsers and the browser as the default interface to all eCommerce.

The same thing needs to happen with Bitcoin; bitcoin must be the default way billions of people spend online, and the way to do that is to seed the global population with small amounts of bitcoin.

When commercial interests merge with the interests of billions of people, you get a platform that completely resists arbitrary change that doesn't serve the people's or commercial interests.

This is what must happen with bitcoin, and it can happen, and happen very rapidly.

QED.

There will always be people who are beyond help, and you must accept this.

It’s within our reach. The major pieces are in place. All we need is a small number of people who do what they say they’re going to do, who don’t outsource their thinking or opinions or break their promises and who are in it for the long haul, and it’s practically guaranteed that within the next three years Ethical Bitcoin will achieve global domination.

Nail biting excitement!