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

230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 178 posts

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#121

Post by whatshisface »

vageli wrote: post #118
admiral33 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for the packages they miss. Any attempt to moderate undesirable content on a website should not then make you liable for the content you miss. [0]: https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/

> I think it's simple. The US postal service uses postal inspectors to try and identify packages containing narcotics[0], and yet we don't make them liable for the packages they miss. Any attempt to moderate undesirable content on a website should not then make you liable for the content you miss. > [0]: https://www.uspis.gov/about/what-we-do/ Then what about sites that would use this to their advantage and half ass…

If you're ignorant or malicious the same thing happens: the government kindly informs you that someone is using your website to break the law, and then you can either do something or become clearly guilty of knowingly supporting them. (The government knows you know because they know they told you.)

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#122

Post by stubish »

seemslegit wrote: post #4
spacephysics wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good question I’d like to know, too. Perhaps they hash the phone numbers then compare to their master list for matches?

That's hardly helpful if I just don't want people who happen to have my number to know I'm using signal.

I'm genuinely interested in the rationale for this.

I fully understand it is just creepy, and lots of people want the option for this alone.

I'm also wondering if it is to do with notifying people you hope think your number is dead that it is very much alive (people you have ghosted).

Any other reasons? Perhaps this should not just be an option, but an opt-in one.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#123

Post by lostmsu »

snazz wrote: post #104
TechBro8615 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram does the same thing. In fact, so does Instagram, which I find most egregious, since it asks for your number for 2FA purposes then notifies anyone who has your number saved that you’ve joined. Every coach, recruiter, drug dealer or one night stand I’ve had in my life doesn’t need to know when I sign up to Instagram. Some of them might not have even had my real name until they got that notification. IMO this s…

I think the issue here is that Instagram has a different idea of the importance of a phone number than you do. They consider a phone number to be more personal information than your full name. Your phone number is also trivially tied to your full name anyway, unless you paid for a burner phone in cash wearing a ski mask.

Not by a drug dealer, no.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#124

Post by jrockway »

reggieband wrote: post #73

I thought it was interesting when Twitch partners started talking about a Twitch policy that seems to hold the partner responsible for moderating their own chat. That is, if you are a partner and you have community members posting prohibited content into your Twitch chat then you stand to pay the penalty through a ban or losing your partnership. You are forced to moderate your own chat thereby relieving Twitch of hav…

Up until very recently, Twitch's moderation tools have been total garbage. I can only assume that they put the chat moderation stuff into their partner contract so they can get rid of undesirable partners easily. "We hate you, and here is a message that your moderators missed so buh bye." I also think that partners are well aware of the possibility of Twitch getting rid of them at any time with no recourse; this is why they heavily advertise their social media, Discord, and YouTube channels. You don't ever want to put all your eggs in one basket. If they have to move, it is likely that some of their audience will follow them.

Overall, I don't think Twitch is using chat moderation as much of a bargaining chip in practice. There are cases of streamers rallying their viewers to abuse other streamers. But in chat, really all you can do is have your bots spam racist messages, ASCII art, or "CUTE BOTS AYAYA CUTE BOTS". Links are mostly banned in practice (not by Twitch but with common extensions), Twitch moderates emotes (aggressively now, even for partners), and whatever hurtful things people say... most people opt out of by watching someone else. All of the stuff that is going to result in legal action tends to happen outside of Twitch (Twitter and Discord are cesspools of drama; read something like /r/OverwatchTMZ for examples).

I guess my point is, I don't think Twitch chat is going to be affected much by any regulations. I suppose if your chat consistently harrasses minors, you could be banned. But it seems very very uncommon even in the extremely toxic gaming community. When it does happen, it's incited by the streamer, and so the specifics of chat don't matter.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#125

Post by sneak »

Reelin wrote: post #119
snazz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue here is that Instagram has a different idea of the importance of a phone number than you do. They consider a phone number to be more personal information than your full name. Your phone number is also trivially tied to your full name anyway, unless you paid for a burner phone in cash wearing a ski mask.

> trivially tied to your full name For a government perhaps, but not your average person. This is similar to claiming that my ISP provided IP address is trivially tied to my full name because someone could subpoena it.

This is false. You are thinking via a carrier; but it turns out that your phone number is mapped to your name and address in hundreds of private databases which are sold to data brokers.

Getting name and email and address from phone number is widely available and cheap for anyone.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#126

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #45
dfee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is an interesting counter-counter-argument i've not seen before. does discussion of this sort of derivative behavior exist elsewhere? i.e. is there an established narrative of incumbents pushing against regulatory capture, or examples of this behavior?

It's just a general behavioral trend I (and plenty of others) have noticed in arguments against regulation coming from monopolies. When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then? Is it out of the goodness of their hearts that large companies complain about regulation hurting small businesses? Or is it because the…

> When a big tech company claims a regulation it dislikes would hurt newer players from competing with it, you have to ask... why are they so opposed then?

First off, I haven't seen big companies making this argument. Can you point us to a high quality source where one does?

Secondly, suppose the size of a market is X and BigCo has a 0.9X slice of it. Suppose the cost of complying with new regulation is 0.5X. Now it is impossible for anyone else to compete with BigCo, since there is no way for second place to be profitable in the market. However, BigCo is still worse off. Their revenues are now X, but their profits are now -0.4X compared to what they were before, since they gained 0.1X revenue and lost 0.5X in compliance costs.

So, if a BigCo were to make such an argument, that's at least one case where they could deploy it honestly while at the same time having their own best interests at heart.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#127

Post by GlTChWhISKY »

Why is legislation like this being presented.. Its simple.. Less people are looking. Of course this bill is intended to do what we all want. The writing is on the walls.

To many people sit around in their passive lifestyle and pass the care to someone else... Doesnt matter who just as long as they dont need to get off the couch and stop scrolling fakebook.

This passes... Youll see 1984 realllll soon... I wish more people would start taking shit seriously. The gov. Has been hijacked .. We all screwed.. Period.. Stop kidding yourself.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#128

Post by ViViDboarder »

seemslegit wrote: post #10
ajconway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use Intel SGX to keep themselves from being able to access their users' contact lists. Still, one has to possess and reveal a valid phone number to use the service. This must help to grow the user base.

This misses the point, just because someone sometimes added me to their phone contacts and uses signal does not mean I want them notified when I start using signal too.

I don’t get it. If they have your number, this person can already message you.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#129

Post by pkilgore »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #99
toast0 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sue John Doe, and ask the court to issue a subpoena to the forum for identifying information, and then to the ISP, and once you have that, add the account holder as a defendant to the suit. It's not fast, and it's not easy, but such is life.

Proxy server usage would skyrocket if this became common - as it should.

This is the legal system right now. So, no.
Post reply on HN