Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 342 posts

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#261

Post by mrguyorama »

XorNot wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was about introducing sex ed to third graders. Have third graders put down their toy cars, dolls and blocks yet? And then you have a Cal governor suinf a school dist demanding they teach the curriculum he believes is correct. So you have an example of two governors, one on each side, tellig districts what to teach But, the thing is, liberals _used_ _to_ espouse free speech as long as it was legal and defended it…

Do you know what the content of sex ed when taught to younger classes is, and why the curriculum was adopted? Because, the core of it was to ensure that said 3rd graders knew two things: 1. What the correct anatomical names for their genitals - parts of their bodies - are, and 2. What is appropriate and inappropriate touching. Now, the reason you want to teach these things to children, really as young as possible, is…

Oh, and you can't base this on "well parents should be in charge of what their kids learn" because a significant amount of the time, the abusers ARE the parents.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#262

Post by wolverine876 »

foo-bar-bat wrote: post #149
wolverine876 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of Signal.

No, WhatsApp is not part of Signal. That's false. The opposite is true: Signal is part of Whats App. The problem is we have no idea what else is.

Correct, and that's what I meant. The person to whom I was responding understood me.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#263

Post by wolverine876 »

didntcheck wrote: post #120
wolverine876 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that relate to the article? It seems like a completely different subject to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. > there’s been a cultural shift in the liberal establishment over the years away from protecting speech, even hateful speech to actively espousing and advocating for censorship The shift is to protecting the rights of people oppressed by hate speech, in the balance between its speakers and vict…

Other people speaking does not censor you. Deciding not to speak because someone upset you is not an infringement of your rights To be clear I am not talking about the heckler's veto, where someone tries to actively interfere with the reception of someone's speech

> Other people speaking does not censor you.

It depends what they say. If they say 'advocate for yourself and we'll lynch you', it does effectively censor you.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#264

Post by mrguyorama »

didntcheck wrote: post #124
Klonoar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not advocating censorship to call for platforms (& co) to combat hate speech. Can you link to anything that actually backs up that claim of yours?

It objectively is calling for censorship, irrespective of whether one considers it justified censorship

The idea that a private platform choosing not to amplify something they don't agree with, something that is clearly spelled out as their right in the first amendment, is "censorship" is absurd. If the local newspaper chooses not to run the classified ad you sent them, that's not censorship. If a big newspaper chooses not to publish the letter to the editor you sent them, that's not censorship. If FEDEX chooses not to ship the package you bring in, that's not censorship.

A business choosing not to do business with you, even in very specific and obtuse ways is not censorship. A private entity has no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to signal boost or publish anything they do not want to.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#265

Post by barbazoo »

autoexec wrote: post #66
barbazoo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem across the spectrum. "Don't say gay" and the whole book banning business across the US come to mind. Is there legislation anywhere implementing "left wing censorship"?

Sylvia Garcia is a Democratic senator from Texas and she sponsored the EARN IT Act two of the times they tried to shove it down our throats. That would have forced sites to backdoor any encryption.

I see, thank you. I wouldn't say this counts as censorship the sense we're talking about though right?

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#266

Post by barbazoo »

monocasa wrote: post #43
barbazoo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> banning of "Latinx" by Sanders Was there legislation? If not, how was it "banned"?

https://apnews.com/article/sarah-huckabee-sanders-politics-u...

Oh I totally misunderstood and looked for a different "Sanders", thanks for sharing.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#267

Post by barbazoo »

Gareth321 wrote: post #183
barbazoo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's (grade 3 -> 9yo) an ok age to start talking about sexuality. Lots of age appropriate topics there. Not sure why this is such a big deal.

I agree, but there are too many reports of teachers teaching some pretty extreme gender ideology to young kids. Things like "you can be any gender you feel like." Most people don't agree with that, and in fact there is no scientific evidence for the existence of gender at all. Sex ed is fine, but I don't think school is a place for ideological indoctrination. States are addressing this in many ham-fisted ways.

> too many reports of teachers teaching some pretty extreme gender ideology to young kids

Interesting, what's a good source on that?

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#268

Post by aborsy »

sneak wrote: post #103
upofadown wrote: post #93

> It also required its users to think like engineers, which included participating in exceptionally nerdy activities like attending real-life “key-signing parties” to verify your identity to other users. In fairness to PGP, Signal uses exactly the same method as PGP does for verifying identities. You need to check a ridiculously long number which represents your correspondent's identity. It's a 40 digit hex "key fing…

> The difference is that Signal will cheerfully let the user have an insecure conversation before the user has verified the safety number. PGP makes it very difficult to fail in that particular way. Most people do not use "insecure" in this way. I would venture to say that your usage of "insecure" here is actually incorrect. Approximately nobody ever does this verification[1], so this distinction is critically import…

Protonmail is an app that uses OpenPGP protocol, like signal uses signal protocol. It works out of box. In both cases, both sides need to use the same app.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#269

Post by boplicity »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #163
bigdang wrote: post #162

> The company’s aggressive pursuit of growth, coupled with lack of moderation in the app, has already led Signal employees themselves to publicly question whether growth might come from abusive users, such as far-right groups using Signal to organize. Lol what? What exactly does far-right mean in this case? Why intersperse irrelevant political digs at another ill-defined faction? Does far-right just mean non-progress…

The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it. I say sympathetic because I don’t believe you can understand anything without really seeing how a reasonable person could come to those same conclusions.

> The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left

Basically, people are fed up with general bigotry, racism, misogyny, and the destruction of the environment -- all of which have real life and death consequences for many people. That, combined with polarization, has made people very reactive to which "side" they perceive things to be on.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#270

Post by meowface »

zo1 wrote: post #238
JohnFen wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does far-right just mean non-progressive and conservative? Don't know what they mean, but to me, "far right" doesn't mean that. It means the most radical extreme of the right. Just like "far left" means the most radical extreme of the left. I'd even argue that the far right is not actually conservative, and the far left is not actually liberal.

That's not how the media and most people see it, unfortunately. Anything remotely mean or intolerant that happens to not be left leaning is auto-labelled far right. It's what I would argue is the silent and unlabeled bias of the media against conservatism. Heck I'm labeled far-right just for suggesting that affirmative action is racist.

>Heck I'm labeled far-right just for suggesting that affirmative action is racist.

By who / where?

Post reply on HN