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

411–420 of 834 posts

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

#411

Post by zimpenfish »

scarab92 wrote: post #373
Gormo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 app…

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.

> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)

No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.

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

#412

Post by zaik »

_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…

When Mr. Musk describes X as "the last bastion of free speech" or similar what do you think he refers to?

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

#413

Post by joshuahedlund »

parodysbird wrote: post #403
Panoramix wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unreasonable to demand that every recipient of money is alive and has a valid age in the system? This shouldn't be a political statement.

He's just queried records with dead=FALSE. It's not active recipients of social security payments. All its showing is that some portion of people die without the death being officially logged on their record in the social security database. Edit: Also, it's not clear that the death field is the sole criteria for determining the eligibility for payments (i.e. determining the recipient is alive)

Yep, it doesn’t sound like that’s the sole criteria based on this thread, which includes a NYT article (from 2023!) showing less than 50k users over 100 collecting payments despite over 18M records. https://xcancel.com/ThatsMauvelous/status/189135619250239902...

I can’t say how annoyed it makes me that Elon’s initial reaction to anything odd seems to be “fraud!!” rather than curiosity

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

#414

Post by dartos »

LocalH wrote: post #390
BSDobelix wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.

"Antisemitic" is also being thrown around a lot towards people who aren't actually saying antisemitic things, but rather criticizing the government of Israel and their actions that take place under color of law.

That is true, but Jew hating people are quite prominent on Twitter.

Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…

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

#415

Post by Refusing23 »

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.

when a 'leader' takes away your rights he will claim its to protect you.

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

#416

Post by engeljohnb »

scarab92 wrote: post #373
Gormo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 app…

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.

Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like.

His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.

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

#417

Post by M4v3R »

red_trumpet wrote: post #259
M4v3R wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be onto something, I noticed that all the banned links were in the format: https://signal.me/#eu/fdy5h1miMifXa ... The URL hash (the part after #) is often not considered by automated systems to be a part of URL that's meaningful, because hash is normally only used for addressing parts of the website that was loaded based on the previous part of the URL. If a particular Signal.me link was flagged for whatev…

You can actually post links of the form https://signal.me/asdf . But https://signal.me/#asdf is blocked. That supports you point of view, I guess?

If you can post links in the form of signal.me/asdf then yes, this reinforces my point that they've probably automatically flagged the top-level domain because of how these /#me links are constructed by Signal.

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

#418

Post by alt227 »

BSDobelix wrote: post #279
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…

>It doesnt though, thats the point. Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right? >They keep listening to the hate speech The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate >>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred…

> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?

If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.

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

#419

Post by karparov »

DecoySalamander wrote: post #369
jdsleppy wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

20 may 1875 is the reference date of ISO 8601:2004.

You don't need to trust me on that, you can just go check the standard.

Or you can claim that it's misinformation too. Up to you.

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

zimpenfish wrote: post #411
scarab92 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.

> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN