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

441–450 of 834 posts

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

#441

Post by terminalbraid »

bad_user wrote: post #428
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…

Name it X because old Twitter is dead.

This is probably the only reasonable argument I've heard for this.

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

#442

Post by scarab92 »

foldr wrote: post #408
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.

Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.

Shifting the goal posts.

The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification.

If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.

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

#443

Post by intended »

alt227 wrote: post #407
Majromax wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 and equal rights in a legal sense, meaning staying out of jail? Sure, with caveats about threats and abuse. Free to use a private platform? No, nobody's entitled to the support of someone else's private platform. Equal rights are about protection from the state , not from o…

> You are entitled to your opinion: good, bad, or irrelevant. You are entitled to your words. You are not entitled to an audience. Brilliant statement, I fully agree. The issue is who chooses to give them an audience. IMO it is up to the audience not to listen, but it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it.…

If a firm decides to be pro or anti free speech. That is their choice.

If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't.

Which puts a hole into the underlying theory. If people do not naturally gravitate towards alternative ideas, and network effects keep people in one place, then these networks should be made government owned.

Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.

I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?

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

#444

Post by upofadown »

bad_user wrote: post #426
upofadown wrote: post #375

This make me curious about exactly what "signal.me" links were all about. The details appear to be available here: * https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Signal.me_URLs * https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Usernames#Username_links Signal.me links are just a way to easily send either a phone number or user name to someone else. No cryptographic identity. No protection of the phone number or user name. So to get around the b…

> The people involved probably should not be using Twitter/X for this sort of thing in the first place. Usernames don't necessarily link someone with their real identity, and phone numbers can be hidden. This isn't the weirdest apology I've ever heard for the behavior of Elon Musk and X's censorship policies, but it's definitely in the top 5.

Phone numbers and usernames are sent in the clear in signal.me links. So in this particular case, they can't be hidden. Perhaps it is not a good idea to post such links on a hostile system.

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

#445

Post by sterlind »

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…

try saying "cisgender."

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

#446

Post by AlecSchueler »

bluebarbet wrote: post #273
sunaookami wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain topics that you can't discuss on Hacker News reasonably and social media is one of them.

Politics in general. Because everyone has an opinion, often based on their values rather than cold facts, and people do not like their values being questioned. The discussion is more civil than on other forums, but the difference is not night and day. Disappointing.

I generally agree with no politics on here but the DOGE stuff is very much tech news.

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

#447

Post by drawkward »

DrDeadCrash wrote: post #303
hug wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you mean do we "believe this nonsense"? I don't use twitter regularly, but I have two accounts for reasons . I just signed in, I typed out a (fake) signal URL, and... posting was blocked. It doesn't appear to be nonsense, it appears to be entirely true that any tweet with "signal.me" in it is blocked. Occam's razor says they're blocking Signal. Hanlon's razor says they're just idiots. Either way: An important…

I think they're saying to give the benefit of the doubt (ex. maybe it's a glitch), without realizing many of us have no more leeway to give due to the continuing onslaught of criminal behavior from musk/Trump which we'll all have to pay for in the future and is now giving our enemies reason to celebrate.

"Benefit of the doubt" is what some were gaslighted into when Musk threw a Nazi salute.

When you attempt to gaslight the entirety of the planet that hard, you get your "Benefit of the Doubt" card revoked.

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

#448

Post by ilikecakeandpie »

alt227 wrote: post #418
BSDobelix wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 b…

> 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?

In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die

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

#450

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

alt227 wrote: post #399
unclebucknasty wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have us…

> To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other wo…

> I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant.

This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides".

Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.

Post reply on HN