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

431–440 of 834 posts

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

#431

Post by bad_user »

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.

You're not wrong, but lately, criticism of Israel includes its right to exist, and while anti-Zionism isn't technically anti-Semitism, in practice it is. Furthermore, the pro-Palestine crowd includes many textbook anti-Semites.

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

#432

Post by karparov »

Tycho wrote: post #397

Can’t really tell what most of you are complaining about. You can say anything on X (short of doxing and inciting violence and things that are against the law), you can follow or block anyone on X. If they ban Signal links, a competitor platform, that’s a shame, but whatever you say on Signal you can say on X instead. Seems like some people think a “free speech platform” would be some sort of moderated debating space…

> whatever you say on Signal you can say on X instead.

Except one of them allows Elon to read what you write, the other doesn't.

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

#433

Post by II2II »

alt227 wrote: post #243
lawn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In that case, even as an ideal, free speech does not exist. Someone can proclaim that I should be killed because of a certain opinion that I voice. Now there are only four outcomes to that scenario: (a) I take the threat seriously and stop voicing that opinion, in which case they have suppressed my freedom of speech; (b) I take the threat seriously and use it to suppress their freedom of speech, (c) I ignore the threat, yet someone else takes it seriously and, as a natural consequence of being dead, they have suppressed my freedom of speech; or (d) I ignore the threat and nothing happens, so nobody's freedom of speech is violated. The problem is, there is no guarantee of scenario (d). This leads to the freedom of speech being used as a tool to suppress the freedom of speech.

This is not a simple matter of people saying things that are undesirable, or even heretical. It is not a matter of someone saying something hateful, then ignoring them as a hater, because chances are they want to suppress the speech of those they hate.

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

#434

Post by loughnane »

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…

Just because some people use "freedom of speech" as a veil, doesn't make it bad.

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

#435

Post by dartos »

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…

> The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry

Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]

Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.

I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.

Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.

Also like… all words are made-up

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

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

#436

Post by diggan »

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.

Yeah, lots of name-calling going around everywhere for sure. We used to have to word "Anti-Zionist" for people against like what Israel is engaging in now, but at one point it feels like the term was "hijacked" and Zionist/Anti-Zionist is now part of forgotten terminology.

"Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.

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

#437

Post by intended »

alt227 wrote: post #196
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…

> 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?

No, this is paradox of Tolerance 101.

Even in his dissenting opinion in Abrams vs the United States, Holmes valued not free speech, but the market place of ideas - the competition of ideas that underlies the search for truth.

Slavishly sticking to free speech, and destroying the market of ideas - creating a monopilist propaganda force, with a symbiotic political party is NOT free speech.

Today we have far more information than any of the founders had anticipated. Monopolies of ideas, far more content than fact, the race to the bottom due to advertising - a source of stress in every pocket?

Yeah, your network is going to have a very specific signal to noise ratio. Your market place of ideas is going to be selling junk food, because its cheap and easy to make.

The idea of counter speech works, if counter speech is heard in the first place. If your message never gets to the other side, or the other party is completely enraged and unable to think past their fears - you have no market place of ideas.

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

#438

Post by advael »

scarab92 wrote: post #422
engeljohnb wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"?

Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions

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

#439

Post by ben_w »

alt227 wrote: post #240
BSDobelix wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So are we seeing full free speech in action? Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race. >Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with? Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.

> 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.

If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.

Such arguments have been convincing in many places and in many times, for many different reasons. Including the USA — the things that are considered "corrupting our youth" at different times and in different ways, plus a bunch of other stuff that society just doesn't function without banning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

> 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.

Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?

> They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.

Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.

> The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world.

Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.

Had to tell one that not only did we support browsers other than Internet Explorer, but that they were themselves using Firefox at the time they claimed to only support Internet Explorer.

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

#440

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

sunaookami wrote: post #158
buyucu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compare the results between the current code and the proposed version. Analyze what the new version blocks that the current one doesn't and vice versa. Have logging that shows which factor(s) were applied in the actions taken. Determine if the outcomes are in line with the intended goals.

This can be accomplished in a few ways. You could accumulate real URLs and build a test set that you can run in non-prod environments prior to deploy. You could also deploy the new version alongside the current version, both watching the live data, with the current version retaining enforcement power while the new version is in log-only mode.

In the case of automated systems that might create new actions in response to live traffic, anomaly detection can be used to look for significant changes in classification and/or rate of actions, spikes in actions against specific domains, etc.

Post reply on HN