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

351–360 of 834 posts

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

#351

Post by _heimdall »

lawn wrote: post #233
alt227 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant Are the people with these views not also entitled to free speech and equal rights to express themselves the same as everybody else?

Free speech doesn't allow you to say anything at all you know? Calling for the eradication of people with certain sexual preferences or skin color for example.

Free speech does protect you to say whatever you want from government censorship. That's getting blurred here with most of the discussion circling around Twitter censorship.

I would still argue, though, that saying literally anything should be legal. Acting on hate speech, by plotting to commit a crime, may be illegal. The problem there is that you plotted a crime and in certain case that plot itself is illegal, it isn't about what you said but what you did.

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

#352

Post by masklinn »

_heimdall wrote: post #341
nomilk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X/Twitter should publicly provide a suspension reason - that would help a lot in verifying whether the account did/did not break TOS. A justification [0] of sorts is provided for the journalist suspensions: > Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

That's not a new problem though, platforms have been kicking people off with no clear reason for years.

Those platforms have not, however, been billing themselves as champions of unfettered free speech before handing out arbitrary unexplained bans when their feelings got hurt or they disliked the speech.

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

#353

Post by whoisthemachine »

_heimdall wrote: post #336
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…

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 v…

This is definitely true, however many of us remember Musk declaring himself a "free-speech absolutist", so in most cases people are referring to his hyprocisy rather than his legal rights.

[0] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

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

#354

Post by lyu07282 »

matwood wrote: post #30
docdeek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Stop carrying water for the world’s richest person. Musk has claimed multiple times he’s a free speech absolutist and bought Twitter to make it the free speech platform. I agree, it’s his platform and he can do what he wants within the law. But, how you or anyone else can continue to defend Musk when he has made clear multiple times he’s a lying hypocrite is beyond my understanding.

I think its funny how some conservatives used to advocate for common carrier regulation because they didn't have much control over social media platforms, now that they do, they don't care anymore about that.

But liberals do seem to stick to their principles of free market capitalism, "it’s his platform and he can do what he wants within the law". I see now why you are so ineffective in combating Trump/Musk if the only problem you have with them is their hypocrisy.

Perhaps you need to come to the realization that if you want liberal democracy you really do need to regulate mass communication platforms in a way that doesn't leech peoples brains out of their ears.

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

#355

Post by nomilk »

_heimdall wrote: post #341
nomilk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X/Twitter should publicly provide a suspension reason - that would help a lot in verifying whether the account did/did not break TOS. A justification [0] of sorts is provided for the journalist suspensions: > Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

That's not a new problem though, platforms have been kicking people off with no clear reason for years.

That's true, but there's no reason Twitter/X has to stay like that.

Stack Overflow has a pretty good model. It does not remove suspended accounts nor their posts (except those directly related to the suspension). It subtly signals that an account is in suspension by reducing the account's 'reputation' (internet points) to 1 and placing a small notice on the profile, usually stating the reason for the suspension (e.g. suspicious voting etc).

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

#356

Post by advael »

_heimdall wrote: post #336
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…

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 v…

Actually freedom of speech is a principle, which Musk and his ilk claim to care about, despite using their power to censor people through either direct control of information streams or threats. The first amendment to the US constitution specifically seeks to reify this principle in laws pertaining only to the government's actions, but freedom of speech as a principle can be supported or violated by anyone with power over other people. The people claiming to be "free speech absolutists" are hypocritical even if they didn't also work for the government and enact these vendettas against speech they don't like on a governmental level (which is also happening)

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

#357

Post by scarab92 »

masklinn wrote: post #340
scarab92 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

Doxing often involves linking data in public datasets to de-anonymised individuals. Using ADS-B to achieve that is just an implementation detail.

Ultimately, there's little doubt that sharing the real time location of named private individuals is doxing.

It's true that Twitter suspended journalists only 24 hours after the ban on doxing went live, but the penality was minor, and journalists were allowed back after they removed the offending content.

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

#358

Post by _heimdall »

lawn wrote: post #262
alt227 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech doesnt have asterisks. If certain people say things that are undesireable to other certain people, they have to power to ignore them.

Free speech is a legal construction and it does in fact come with exceptions. Child pornography, slander, and death threats are other examples of exceptions.

Anyone who has considered child porn speech is smoking something. We have agreed the act of taking pictures or videos of children in those situations to be illegal, it isn't about the meaning or speech a person may apply to that final product.

Slander and death threats are harder to define. You have to show an active plot to commit the crime, not just a statement. At that point the plot, the action you took, is the crime rather than your words.

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

#359

Post by alt227 »

croes wrote: post #288
alt227 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even free speech has its limits It doesnt though, thats the point. Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business. With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listenin…

That's not how capitalism works because the between the companies and the customers is a Mismazch in power and information. That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power. According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech. Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits? And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that…

> According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.

IMO it is

> Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?

Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.

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

#360

Post by dettil »

JohnMakin wrote: post #346
dettil wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a flat out falsehood - jk rowling was spewing anti trans hate from the position of “feminism” long before the purchase of twitter, she was never “censored” or anything close to it. This is revisionist bs, framed in a way to make your dear leader look like the hero, and not the incompetent anti free speech nitwit he actually is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48366184

You should perhaps do more research before making claims like "flat out falsehood".

Post reply on HN