Looking at the thread here.
Trust in society is being eradicated and that's how authoritarian regimes win.
Great video to understand what's going on: https://youtu.be/nknYtlOvaQ0?si=1LP6QsbFgIvpfIay
It's sad
X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
151–160 of 834 posts
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? The Arab spring was a populist uprising. It's not clear that there were actually positive outcomes; just increased geopolitical instability. Twitter has always been a social media platform, and definitionally it has therefore always increased extremism and populism. I find it incredibly disheartening that…
Twitter was a net positive for many. Millions of people around the world relied on it for timely news and updates in the absence of other avenues. This was particularly pertinent in places like Africa where state infrastructure wasn't able to provide or indeed, the middle east, where censorship prevented accurate news being disseminated. So your assertion that "Twitter was _never_ a net positive for anyone" is not on…
>Given that overthrowing The Taliban (lol) and Saddam is hailed as a positive of the trillions of dollars and millions of lives spent on the GWOT, at least give the people of the Middle East the courtesy of acknowledging the overthrow of Ben Ali, Assad, Mubarak and Gaddafi.
I don't believe either of those ended up positive either. The Taliban waited out the US; they may have been overthrown, but given that he Taliban are back in power it seems like the entire effort was waste. In Iraq, Saddam was the only force holding back the Shia majority. Iraq has largely devolved into another proxy for Iran, and I don't believe it can be argued that Iraq is any better off with Saddam gone. I'm not supportive of Saddam, either; he was truly evil in ways that people don't always understand. My point would just be that populism and revolution do not necessitate positive outcomes.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#153Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
[flagged]
It was a nothing burger because Twitter didn't blindly do everything they were asked to do, they rejected a bunch of the government requests. It's not weird for law enforcement to notify a platform of something suspicious they found on the platform.
The Twitter Files also conveniently omitted that Twitter also got requests from the Trump campaign and accepted some of them.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#154This comment section has turned into something of a circle, it's cool to be mad nd all, but there was a comment expressing doubt at the details, wonder about a reason other than those stated, and asking if anyone independently verified, as I clicked it the comment was flagged to oblivion. No opportunity to engage with that viewpoint.
There are certain topics that you can't discuss on Hacker News reasonably and social media is one of them.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#155[flagged]
He tried to weasel out of the purchase, until it was obvious he would lose the court battle.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#156Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
>Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? The Arab spring was a populist uprising. It's not clear that there were actually positive outcomes; just increased geopolitical instability. Twitter has always been a social media platform, and definitionally it has therefore always increased extremism and populism. I find it incredibly disheartening that…
> The Arab spring was a populist uprising. It's not clear that there were actually positive outcomes
Tunisia is now arguably better off, but even beyond that: the longterm effects of such things aren't always immediately apparent. The French Revolution led to terror, then to an Empire and devastating wars and finally back to the old monarchy, but it cast a very long shadow on the 19th century and beyond.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#157Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason absolutely matter : a mistake can happen to anyone, and be fixed within a short time, while censorship is deliberate and will probably not be fixed
twitter is not anyone. you would expect a company of this size with millions of users to have checks and tests.
Legit question: How would you test something like this? It's not like you can have automated tests with million of random links. And these URLs are certainly not hardcoded.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#159Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
"Freedom of speech" on Twitter is nothing more than Newspeak for censorship. In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves, while allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant. It is a form of indirect censorship, through the self-censorship of minorities who fear speaking out. Then comes direct censorship, where certain terms or lin…
> In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves
This particular clause seens very unlikely. One could want an increase in racism and homophobia on a platform without specifically wanting there to be less black people (for example) speaking out. That the -isms cause said people to speak up less would likely be a (pleasant?) side effect rather than the primary goal.