are you sure - what happens when google traverses the list from outside of your social graph - block avoided - bear (aka Mike Taylor)

Good to see that blocking the list maker removes you from the list. Should still be able to opt out of lists - Mark Trapp

Yes, I'm sure. Blocking completely removes you from the list. Mark: you can opt out of lists. Just block the lists people put you on. - Robert Scoble

FTR I wasn't attacking them. That link comes from Mark Trapp. It's an interesting conversation though. Also cool that you can block a list and take yourself out of it. - Jesse Stay

Robert, you can't block lists. You can block people who created lists, which by extension, removes you from the list. That doesn't help people who want to opt out of a list but not block the list creator; I point this out in my post about not wanting to be in technology lists for example. Beyond that, the core issue is that Twitter is now allowing other users to modify your profile without your consent, and the only way you can protect yourself is to take a drastic action like blocking or deleting your account. Twitter could easily add basic countermeasures: list opt-out and removing the lists from a person's profile, or make lists entirely opt-in. - Mark Trapp

I also don't understand why it's lame - Mark has some valid points. - Jesse Stay

FWIW Facebook has this with photo tagging - Twitter should do something similar. If you're "tagged" in a photo or video, you can immediately remove the tag. You can also set privacy preferences as to who can see tagged photos/videos of you (based on list). - Jesse Stay

That's really all that's required, Jesse: I think it's a simple security/privacy consideration that shouldn't change the functionality of lists. Right now, however, the functionality makes a privacy assumption that doesn't exist anywhere else in Twitter, and people ought to know that or Twitter needs to fix it. - Mark Trapp

And thus begins privacy controls in Twitter, and thus starts Twitter's journey towards competing with Facebook. :-) - Jesse Stay

Jesse - have the battle with privacy is not the automated control you put in but the Human Element. If you are that concerned about privacy control it yourself - Rob Cairns

Rob, I'm not sure where I said anything about automation - Jesse Stay

Mark, I'm not really seeing your argument here, it sounds a bit paranoid. If someone puts you on a benign list you don't want to be on for some reason, just contact the list creator. If they fail to comply with a polite request, they are NOT your friend and you just block them. Why would you feel the need to still follow them? If someone puts you on a malevolent list of some sort (should be rare, you'll see that few people will bother), just BLOCK them, why would you still want to hear from them?!? Twitter thrives on simplicity, let's hope it never gets to be as convoluted as Facebook. The new lists can use plenty of feature upgrades (search, etc.), but micro-managing privacy is not one of them. - Alex Schleber

BTW, I just scoured Scoble's first few hundred "listed" entries (of his current 1400+), and the most egregious terms I could find were "echochamber", "tech freak", and "scobleitis" :) Hardly slander/libel material. And you know someone out there isn't big on Robert, but I doubt they will bother to add him to a negative list. They just blocked him early on... - Alex Schleber

Mark: have you even tried this? Steve Gillmor and I have. If I block a list's owner it removes me from all of his lists. - Robert Scoble

which I have. he's so blocked. Check Tech Pundits. I'm not there. - Steve Gillmor

Robert: you said repeatedly you can block a list. I said you can't: you can only block a list creator, which subsequently blocks any list they created. Now you're saying the exact same thing I said. There's a difference I don't think you're picking up on: I want to be able to remove myself from lists, not block people. If I have a friend who's decided to categorize me as "technology" and I don't want to be in that list, my only recourse is to block my friend. That's not ideal at all. - Mark Trapp

On top of the fact that blocking is reactive, not preventative. I have to realize I'm in a list before I can take action to remove myself from it. I don't want to be part of any technology related lists, yet I have to wait until someone tags me as such before I can block that person to remove myself from it. Why aren't lists opt-in, especially considering the list memberships show up on my profile? I have no control over a major part of my profile, which is unlike any other part of Twitter. - Mark Trapp

At the very least, list shouldn't be part of my profile (since I can't control, directly, what lists I'm apart of) and I should be able to remove myself from a list without blocking the list creator. I don't see how that's unreasonable or the argument against having those two pieces of functionality. - Mark Trapp

One of the bigger problems I have with sites like Facebook is that I have no control over how others see my public profile (right now you'll prob see 16+ yr old girls asking you to contact them, surrounding my profile. I'm happily married, have 4 kids. Mark has a point. It's hard to maintain a personal brand on the web, and others that can classify you (wrongly) won't help. Then again Twitter is 90% bots so I don't think many will notice - Alexander van Elsas

Alexander: actually Twitter isn't 90% bots. Just 50%. :-) - Robert Scoble

Alexander, have you tried privacy settings in Facebook? That's why you use Facebook - it gives you that control. (I thought this conversation was about Twitter) (confused) - Jesse Stay

Robert, I'm suspecting you are a bot too. Can we do a turing test right now to see :-) - Alexander van Elsas

Jesse, I tried. But I couldn't find that switch that protected me from Facebook themselves. So I gave up. - Alexander van Elsas

Alexander: I'm a bot with awesome voice recognition. :-) - Robert Scoble

Alexander - protected you from Facebook themselves? It's called your own blog. :-) - Jesse Stay

Jesse, I just looked you up on Facebook. I saw a "buy this cheap house now, color your picture into a cartoon, and a dental advertisement. What does that say about you? Are you a cheap cartoon real-estate dentist, or are you a cool web 2.0 dude? - Alexander van Elsas

Alexander where are you seeing this? Are you looking at http://facebook.com/stay? - Jesse Stay

search: Jesse stay - Alexander van Elsas

The thing is Jesse, you can set settings any way you want, but Facebook has an advertisement based model. So they'll display ads, usually incredibly badly targeted, next to your profile. And there is nothing that prevents them from doing that. If I use Facebook to connect to people I care about, then I do not want to be associated with badly targeted ads (or any ads for that matter) - Alexander van Elsas

BTW, it took me 2 screen refreshes to see a beautiful, but way too young girl next to your profile ;-) - Alexander van Elsas

Alexander, not sure that has anything to do with Twitter or Facebook then - the only place you're completely safe from that stuff is your own blog. BTW, click on the profile - of course you're going to see non-related info next to my name in a search. - Jesse Stay

Jesse, don't agree. Facebook is for connecting with friends (or business partners). Important in your social interactions. So if Facebook serves badly targeted ads next to your profile it sucks. Especially on the search page, which is the most likely place people that are looking for you will find you! Their business model makes this happen. And their privacy settings only relate to your privacy towards other users, not towards Facebook. They own it all. Sorry for the hijack, will stop now. - Alexander van Elsas

Still not sure what you're arguing Alexander. I've never had trouble finding close friends and family. Your results will get much more accurate when those friends are already friends of other friends of yours, which is usually the case of how I find people on Facebook. If not, just Google them - those profiles are indexable for at least their names. - Jesse Stay

Your profile is the first that comes up here: http://www.google.com/search... - Jesse Stay

Alexander, I agree. It seems to me that there are targeted ads (some I find really offensive as if they think they know what I want) but then there are also ads that are random: they are going to always go for the wide net with those. - Melanie Reed

Jesse, my point is that if someone searches and finds me on Facebook, Facebook will display ads on the search result page next to my profile. Those ads tend to be badly targeted. Let's say an old friend, business partner, or recruiter is looking for me and sees those ads of 16 yr old girls looking for some action next to my profile, what does that make them think about me? - Alexander van Elsas

That there are badly-placed ads just like everywhere else on Facebook next to your profile. What does this have to do with removing yourself from Twitter lists? - Jesse Stay

I mentioned it because I think I understand why Mark Trapp is questioning the way lists have been implemented on Twitter. It is a similar issue I think. If they incorrectly categorize or misplace me ('real-estate-heroes'), it affects how others will perceive me. (Hope I'm right Mark :-) ) - Alexander van Elsas

Alexander I don't see the relation in that case - you can't remove yourself from Twitter search either so long as you have a Twitter account, and you can bet that will have ads in the very near future. What about Google, that places ads around your content? That's just the price for being on the web. What Mark's talking about is the actions of other users - how can I remove myself from a list some other user has placed me in? What you're talking about is a much bigger problem of the web as a whole. - Jesse Stay

Not looking to be right or wrong, just mentioned it. But hey, I haven't seen this much discussion action on FF in a while :-) - Alexander van Elsas

I'm talking about both things: someone else shouldn't be able to dictate, by implication or otherwise, how I'm perceived on my own profile. People can @ me, or say, on their own Twitter stream, that I'm a dick, or a puppy killer, or whatever, but that's attached to them, not to my profile. The way Twitter lists are implemented, they're attached to me rather than the person making the categorization. So, if they're going to be attached to me, they should be opt-in, or if they can't be opt-in, they shouldn't be attached to my profile. - Mark Trapp

Mark I don't see how that has anything to do with search though (re: both things) - Jesse Stay

Alex said I was questioning the way lists have been implemented on Twitter, that if someone incorrectly categorizes me, it affects how people perceive me. You said that I'm talking about the actions of other users, and how can I remove myself from a list a user has placed me in. Both things are under the domain of my argument. I don't really care about search, unless, as Alex is suggesting, things I didn't consent to are being attached to my profile in a search result. - Mark Trapp

Mark, the latter is just a part of being on the web. Don't open an internet browser if you don't want that. You can't control that on Twitter or Facebook or Google or even your own site (assuming you allow ads) for that matter. It's crazy to think anyone can control how they show up in a search result in relation to ads. - Jesse Stay

Mark: you are wrong and the era of control is over (Steve Gillmor tells me that every show). Personally this is freaking awesome that you can see how people perceive me. And I can see it too. If I don't like how people are perceiving me, I can block them or I can contact them and try to change how they perceive me. But so far I've been looking at thousands of people and this system is REMARKABLY accurate. - Robert Scoble

Jesse: which is why I don't care about search, and it isn't part of my argument. Alex is making a stronger connection between the ads served and my profile, and if he's correct, then there's a problem. But I'm fine with him, not me, tackling that problem: I think the Twitter list implementation is problematic even without considering search implications. - Mark Trapp

Hey Robert, Just looked you up on Facebook and I saw a pretty sleezy looking girl next to you. Facebook decided to do that. You may not mind, but I think it sucks within the context of Facebook and what it should stand for (connecting friends). Facebook could easily decide not to present that advertisement, but they don't. And with that, they affect our personal brand. Jesse. Don't generalize to the entire web. See it in the context of the Facebook service which primary goal should be to connect friends, not to display sleezy ads - Alexander van Elsas

Robert: there's nothing particular about the Twitter list implementation that ensures that they are being used for actual perception, and not for other uses (I outlined two: spam and maliciousness). Very basic functionality could be added to lists to mitigate those, non legitimate, uses without changing the core functionality. For instance, your use case you just described, being able to see how others perceive you, does not require lists being public or attached to your profile. - Mark Trapp

Alexander your argument is ridiculous and I'm just going to leave it at that - this is getting repetitive. I see Robert's side of this on the lists - personally, it doesn't matter to me too much. In the end I could just report it to Twitter, but I always have the option of blocking. IMO if the individual isn't willing to remove me from one of their lists after respectfully asking them they deserve to be blocked. They're jerks anyway. - Jesse Stay

Mark: actually, having them attached to your profile and public means I can learn about how others view YOU. This is ABSOLUTELY HUGE in networking. But, yes, I can see why it would freak you out. You better be nice to all of us or else we'll put you on the nasty list. :-) - Robert Scoble

Jesse, 'your argument is ridiculous' is a good way of shutting me up. I won't say another word - Alexander van Elsas

@Robert: You said at #140Conf that Lists aren't spammable. I say they will be. What if scumbag spammers create multiple accounts and add all their usernames to various lists? So, your search for "pilots" could be yield a bunch of phony lists with fake pilots. You could eventually go through the trouble of blocking all those users to kill the lists, but a big waste of time for you. Others could be fooled. - Bryan Person

@vanelsas you are forgetting that Facebook is targeting those ads AT YOU. They primarily go by YOUR demographics and profile keywords from what I understand. Either way, people understand that ads are not the responsibility of the profile owner (most of them get completely ignored anyway). I really don't get your and Mark's fears about this stuff. Seems overblown. So what if someone says something you don't like about or near you? It's called life...deal with it. - Alex Schleber

@alex I am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. Relax. - Alexander van Elsas from iPhone

Like anything, lists need to be taken with grain of salt. Most will be ego boosts and people trying to chum one another. I don't think lists will be a "game changer". Too subjective. - Kasey Skala

This is why lists is in beta, to work out the kinks and I'm sure if it becomes an issue, Twitter will add the ability to opt-out. Perhaps instead of opting out it would be better to use an opt-in format. If someone adds my name to a list I get a DM from Twitter asking me if I want to be on it and if I don't reply in the affirmative I'm not added to the list. - Hugh Briss

Having to block a person to come off their list is like having to report a newsletter as spam rather than simply unsubscribing. Not to mention it raises flags with Twitter's abuse people when someone is blocked by several people. - Rooker