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

361–370 of 834 posts

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

#361

Post by moomin »

_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…

I mean, congratulations you’ve explained why the Speechers criticising Twitter were always wrong on this point, but Twitter has now been taken over by people who’ve been pushing a very unamerican idea of free speech so it’s fair game to point out they’re trying to prevent people from using the very system that DOGE runs on.

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

#362

Post by Gormo »

_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…

> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech.

Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state.

The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.

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

#363

Post by alt227 »

_heimdall wrote: post #348
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?

This is the tricky line, isn't it? Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection? My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a…

Thanks for the thoughtful reply on an incediary topic.

I agree with your viewpoint I think, but Im sure as always there are some edge cases which make this definition difficult.

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

#364

Post by moomin »

whoisthemachine wrote: post #353
_heimdall wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s always been free speech for us, not for you.

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

#366

Post by barrell »

_heimdall wrote: post #348
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?

This is the tricky line, isn't it? Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection? My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a…

Tricky? Not really.

Difficult? Yes.

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

#367

Post by alt227 »

aredox wrote: post #327
alt227 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you feel that people who disagree with what you think is right should be silenced and not allowed to express themselves?

"I am ready to pay 1000000 USD to anyone who tortures and/or kills you or anyone in your family in the most gruesome way." Isn't that free speech?

Yep it totally is and you are fine to say that about me or anyone else.

If someone takes you up on that offer and you pay them, that crosses from free speech into illegal activity and you will be put in jail. But you are totally fine to talk about if you want.

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

#368

Post by janderson215 »

Y_Y wrote: post #267
bluebarbet wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is gratuitously snarky and adds little to the discussion.

What's the post in saving up all this karma if I can't spend it on enjoying myself once in a while?

Is that the HN equivalent of “what’s the point of having Fuck You Money if I don’t say “fuck you”?”

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

#369

Post by DecoySalamander »

jdsleppy wrote: post #345
lenkite wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Apparently the 150 year old Social Security recipients were due to a COBOL quirk where the zero datetime is 1875. Interesting, but not fraud.

> COBOL quirk where the zero datetime is 1875

This is a piece of misinformation coming from Twitter/X post.

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

#370

Post by throwaway93140 »

bearjaws wrote: post #284
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 doesnt have asterisks. Yeah it does, at least in America. You can't yell fire in a theatre and incite panic. Also there is the paradox of tolerance.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN