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

X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

disruptionist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 834 posts

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#331

Post by Me000 »

dettil wrote: post #324
xzjis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Prior to Musk's purchase of Twitter, feminists who expressed the view that women and girls need single-sex spaces, and that males who identify as women aren't actually women and therefore shouldn't be allowed in these spaces, would be banned from the platform under the guise of "transphobia". They were literally being silenced for expressing their criticism of the ideology of gender identity and how it is being used…

I don’t have the freedom to say how I feel this. But I have been studying the great helmsman recently and soon we will all have an exchange of views.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#332

Post by 4ndrewl »

dettil wrote: post #324
xzjis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Prior to Musk's purchase of Twitter, feminists who expressed the view that women and girls need single-sex spaces, and that males who identify as women aren't actually women and therefore shouldn't be allowed in these spaces, would be banned from the platform under the guise of "transphobia". They were literally being silenced for expressing their criticism of the ideology of gender identity and how it is being used…

The difference is that freedom of speech is concerned with what the Government allows you to talk about.

X, through Musk, is now a quasi-governmental platform - as can demonstrated by actions like this.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#333

Post by [deleted] »

Y_Y wrote: post #172
xzjis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.

[deleted]

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#334

Post by aredox »

scarab92 wrote: post #189
masklinn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values. It took 6 weeks for that milk to rot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended. Wikipedia cops a lot of criticism for being politically biased. The fact it has a whole article around this seems to support that.

The rules on doxing are applied haphazardly.

Musk is fine with censorship with his Chinese CCP friends, anyway, so the hypocrisy is as big as his Melon.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#335

Post by rsolva »

redbell wrote: post #174

Ironically, three years ago, Musk encouraged the use of Signal and tweeted: " Use Signal ", https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153 Edit: In my opinion, Elon Musk initially endorsed Signal because of its strong encryption, security, and commitment to privacy. Now, he's blocking it for those very same reasons—what a blatant double standard! On a related note, one of the key advantages of the modern internet—…

He may use Signal, but he does not want people on X to advertise their presence on any competing platforms. It is a childish and protectionist policy, and in no way align with his Free Speech® claims.

It was the same when URLs to Mastodon/Fediverse instances was banned on X, in an attempt to hamper the network effect for those who migrated. Meta does the same with Pixelfed these days, to hamper migration away from Instagram.

Elon and Mark are all for competition and free markets, but as soon as alternatives that can't be bought and controlled pops up, they outright ban any mention of it on their platforms.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#336

Post by _heimdall »

xzjis wrote: post #126
decimalenough wrote: post #4

Remember 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…

Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. The Twitter files are a recent example of the government partnering with private corps to censor, so that's a fair argument, but in general a private company can't violate free speech by deciding what kind of content they want allowed.

Is it shitty that they censor? Absolutely. But is it a constitutional violation? Not unless I've horribly misunderstood my rights for more than 35 years.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#337

Post by aredox »

matwood wrote: post #36
scott_w wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you’re correct as to his intentions, it’s still important to point out his hypocrisy as he called himself “a free speech absolutist,” and claimed to want Twitter to be part of that vision. He explicitly called left wing and right wing views as things he wants. Yes, we know it was all lies but not putting out the evidence allows people like Musk and his acolytes to make it the new truth without a fight.

We really are living in a world where we were always at war with Eurasia. Musk shouted loudly to his followers his views on free speech and why he wanted to buy Twitter. And now, it’s like it never happened. This isn’t like a bias news outlet leaving out certain facts, this is Musk himself saying these things and people going along with it. It’s bonkers to me.

Remember how he tried to get out of the twitter deal by claining there were too many bots?

How is the bot situation on twitter now?

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#338

Post by rabite »

andrepd wrote: post #105
rabite wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I own a platform I’m not under any obligation to allow you to say whatever you like on that platform. Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de fac…

You're spot on (I say this as a lefty). Big social media like fb, instagram, twitter, et al are bigger and more important than any physical public square that ever existed. They are way way WAY past the point where they need to be treated as such and regulated as both a public forum for 1A purposes and as a utility like phone or mail for privacy protection and non-discrimination purposes. Just don't pretend that tryi…

[dead]

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#339

Post by goodpoint »

delfinom wrote: post #242
BSDobelix wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Do they believe free in free speech No they don't, blue-sky belongs to the former twitter owner, aka THE BUBBLE ;) BTW: He was not welcomed at FOSDEM because he is billionaire, when a movement eats itself ;) https://drewdevault.com/2025/01/16/2025-01-16-No-Billionares...

He was not welcomed by a small minority at FOSDEM* Minorities with loud voices always wins because people don't want to deal with bullshit

Citation needed.

Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

#340

Post by masklinn »

scarab92 wrote: post #189
masklinn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values. It took 6 weeks for that milk to rot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended. Wikipedia cops a lot of criticism for being politically biased. The fact it has a whole article around this seems to support that.

> A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended.

That is a complete lie. Musk "updated" twitter rules to ban the tracking of private jets (namely his) despite that being public information, and immediately proceeded to suspend accounts having relayed that public information, and accounts which had mentioned or linked to such, or to aviation tracker websites.

Musk also routinely singles out individuals of companies or administrations he dislikes e.g. https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-bullying-federal-wor...

Post reply on HN