X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by SiliconSplash » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #457

SiliconSplash wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of criticism of Elon Musk coming coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I am consider myself right of centre and I hear plenty of criticisms of Elon Musk coming from the right. The complaints are completely different though. The big problem with any of these discussions (especially online) is that a lot of people are intellectually lazy and assume the other-side is comprised of brain dead z…

I don’t think it’s quite right to say they assume it. News outlets and online platforms intentionally cultivate that idea, because in the modern era they directly optimize for engagement, and I’m substantially more likely to click on people saying or complaining about outrageous things than measured criticisms from a perspective I don’t share.

Maybe it is a bit of both. However the end result is the discourse online is frequently frames on the idea that the if you are part of Group A, then Group B is full of sycophants. I am also dubious whether I am actually talking to a real person in a lot of these discussions, but that is another discussion entirely.

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

#502

Post by chownie » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #466

sterlind wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try saying "cisgender."

A quick search for the word shows numerous X posts using it in the last few hours.

You have to search that word specifically to find those posts, they're otherwise algorithmically censored from timelines.

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

#503

Post by alt227 » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

aredox wrote: post #344

alt227 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon literally said: "Criticizing me all day long is totally fine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

Another lie in the long list of lies from his mouth.

Have you been on Twitter recently? 50% of it loves Musk, the other 50% openly hate him and abuse him. If what people on here are saying was true, those accounts publicly insulting him would be blocked by now.

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

#504

Post by kamarg » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #325

atoav wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very simple: 1. Inherited rich kids like Elon often have a strong feeling that they are better then the rest of humanity. 2. But it turns out if you are a leech on society like that sooner or later people stop accepting that (remember: he pays less in taxes and gains more in government subsides than most people) 3. So in order for people not to turn against you sooner or later you need to keep them split into s…

Even granting that, you would want MORE LGBTQ+/minority speech. The more energy people spend arguing with each other about culture war, the more dividee they are and the less they have for trying to change inequality. Trying to silence LGBTQ+ etc people goes directly against the goal you posit.

It's not a closed ecosystem. If LGBTQ+/minority speech is happening on a different platform or medium, it's still happening. It can be profitable to be the part of the ecosystem that doesn't cater to the minority as long as someone else does.

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

#505

Post by _heimdall » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

guappa wrote: post #402

_heimdall wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you… So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship…

No one is required to help me spread my speech. The only protection is against governments censoring what their citizens say.

Don't sell me paper. Cut off my internet. That doesn't stop me from saying whatever I want, whether in public or private.

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

#506

Post by bhouston » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

soundnote wrote: post #458

Y_Y wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.

That's true in good part. But when it comes to leftist activists specifically, it's war for Musk. His son transitioning didn't exactly endear him to the ideology.

> But when it comes to leftist activists specifically, it's war for Musk. His son transitioning didn't exactly endear him to the ideology.

It isn't just a left issue. Liberatarians also don't really care about LGBT people expressing themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LG...

So Musk isn't libertarian nor left on social issues. He is conservative right. Although his exact philosophy is hard to pin down because he isn't really a supporter of the traditional family.

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

#507

Post by ben_w » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #477

ben_w wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 funct…

> If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech. Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it. > Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election? Yep, and if the majority of the world fully agrees that Twitter is in the wrong and is a horrible place then it will plummit further and cease to exist. The thing here is that…

> Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.

"Election".

Action very easy. They do it a lot. Did it this time, even, despite what they say.

> He didnt.

He did.

Here's the lawsuit that X Corp. filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

That is him doing the thing.

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

#508

Post by _heimdall » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

guappa wrote: post #483

intended wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are. They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed. What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it. Its not a fair…

> Then you do not have free speech Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom. You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.

Governments can't censor what their citizens say. That's the only protection covered in the US constitution.

Private citizens and companies can censor. Twitter can have rules of conduct or terms of use, for example, and you have to play by their rules when posting on their service. The government isn't involved at all (twitter files not withstanding).

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

#509

Post by _heimdall » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

barrell wrote: post #366

_heimdall wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, that's fine. Tricky wasn't a great fit there, I meant tricky to define or agree upon. Difficult works better there.

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

#510

Post by berkes » Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

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.

You cannot. Because these aren't simple "URL parsers" or such. They commonly use heuristics, bayesian logic and complex statistics (the word AI has become so conflated with LLMs and GPTs, and infected with politics, but it is a form of AI).

The output isn't reproducible, not even predictable. The whole idea of a system like this is that it adapts. If only by simply collecting more data to "do the stats on".

What systems like this need, is different layers towards which stuff is leveraged. This is how your spam folder in your mailbox works too (to some extend). Basically: if it's clearly spam, just /dev/null it, if its clearly not spam let it pass. Everything inbetween will be re-rated by another layer which then does the same etc. One or more of these layers can and should be humans. The actions of these humans then train the system. If gmail isn't certain something is spam, it'll deliver it to your spam folder, or maybe even to your inbox. For you to review and mark as ham or spam manually.

Knowing that Elon fired a lot of teams of humans that fact-checked, researched fake news, a lot of it manually, I'd not be surprised if exactly the "human layers" were simply removed. Leaving a system that's not tuned nor checked while running.

(Source: I've built spam/malware/bot etc detection for comment sections of large sites)