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

511–520 of 834 posts

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

#511

Post by Ylpertnodi »

coldblues wrote: post #309
axegon_ wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously this delusional? All other messengers offer e2e encryption in one form or another and the "feds" can't request shit. The only difference is that signal does it out of the box, instead of being buried 20 layers deep in menus and unlike the other messengers(including telegram) is not false advertising and is a crime in the civilized world under data protection laws. So much for free speech(which btw i…

What I've said is from the perspective of a hypothetical moderation team at Twitter that has enacted this change, a change that will most likely be reversed, and was probably a mistake. Additionally, you are breaking the site's guidelines. This comment thread has very little to do with Elon Musk, please direct your rage somewhere else.

>This comment thread has very little to do with Elon Musk, please direct your rage somewhere else.

Backatcha. If it's about twitter, specifically 'x', musk has a lot to do with it...somewhere in the region of 100%. It may be unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. And he's the reason many stay away from it. As another poster asked, why do you (continue to) use it? Similarly, someone (else) is highly likely to mention a certain brand of vehicles but not me.

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

#512

Post by ben_w »

dartos wrote: post #435
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…

> 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 e…

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

So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.

Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.

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

#513

Post by alt227 »

croes wrote: post #497
alt227 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech. IMO it is > Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits? Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.

What about cyber grooming? So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?

> What about cyber grooming?

Words are still just words until they are acted on, but this is just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

> So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?

Not sure where you got that from, of course it is possible. But we are all gatekeepers of our own minds.

You seem to be ignoring my responses and trying to lead me further into extreme examples to trap me. Carry on if you feel you must, but at the end of the day we both have our opinions and we are entitiled to them.

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

#514

Post by root_axis »

waonderer wrote: post #175
buyucu wrote: post #82

[flagged]

Which platform provides the same network effect? Bsky? Mastodon? I don't see the popular Twitter personalities there such as naval, balajis, paulg, etc. or folks from TOPT, etc.

> Which platform provides the same network effect?

None, obviously - every network is unique. However, that doesn't contradict the premise. If one accepts that continuing to use twitter makes one "part of the problem", a desire to read PG's tweets doesn't seem like a meaningful justification. In my view, the only justification is "I don't care how twitter operates" or "I think twitter's new mission is good".

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

#515

Post by stainablesteel »

philipdavis wrote: post #374

Do people in the US still use X? If yes, why? What keeps you on the platform (so the owner is a tiny step closer to destroying your own country)?

i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money

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

#516

Post by Majestic121 »

rsynnott wrote: post #239
Majestic121 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason absolutely matter : a mistake can happen to anyone, and be fixed within a short time, while censorship is deliberate and will probably not be fixed

If a 'mistake' keeps happening for two years, then it is realistically not a mistake. This is not Musk!twitter's first 'mistake' of this nature, by a long shot.

Ok, I see what you mean and I agree with you, it would not be a first time a company pulls this kind of trick.

But in this case it's not that the reason does not matter, it's that the reason is censorship/bad faith competition, and is obfuscated behind a mistake

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

#517

Post by dettil »

JohnMakin wrote: post #472
dettil wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could search X and provide many more examples, including from feminists who appealed and were unbanned after Musk took over the company, others from screenshots posted of emails with the reason for the ban. Would that change your view?

The original claim: “before musk you as a feminist could not state (common anti trans positions held by feminists of a certain flavor)” I provided the single biggest counterexample ever in JK rowling, so the original post is either a falsehood (I believe so) or very wrong, hope that’s more clear to you, since you seem to have issues following here. You could search it yet you don’t provide those examples here which i…

It seems to me that you've misread my original comment as stating that all feminists who spoke out against the misogyny of gender identity ideology on Twitter were banned. This isn't what I said or what I meant. To elaborate a bit more: in addition to the then-permanent bans, there was also a considerable amount of self-censorship amongst those who hadn't been banned (or had only been temporarily suspended), to avoid wording their views in such a way that may be disfavoured by Twitter's censorial policies.

JKR is an interesting counterexample for a number of reasons. One is that she was very careful and tempered in her language, as one may expect from an expert writer and of someone with her keen perception of language. If you search her tweets on this topic prior to Musk's ownership (e.g. "from:jk_rowling until:2022-04-14 trans" in the X search box) you'll see what I mean. Another is that she spoke out on this topic fairly late on, and so would have witnessed the censorship and been aware of how best to express her views around these limitations. There is also the fact that hers is and was one of Twitter's most-followed accounts and in practice that would give her more leeway in terms of freedom of expression.

I could search X to confirm to you what I personally witnessed with regard to feminists who aren't JKR being censored and banned, but that would take some effort and I'm not yet convinced that it would be worth it, given that you're engaging with an attitude of aggressive cross-examination rather than curiosity and open-mindedness. This is also why I enquired as to if it might change your view.

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

#518

Post by psychoslave »

ben_w wrote: post #439
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. 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.

As a more general approach to freedom, we can consider that freedom can only begin where it confirms others’ freedom. If we don’t act with reciprocity in mind, we are on the track to build some kind of hegemony, not to establish a society of free people.

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

#519

Post by scarab92 »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #498
berkes wrote: post #48

I'm not defending Twitter or their policy in any way (disclaimer: I left Twitter the moment Elmo took over. I despise his hypocrisy and his fascist ideas) But this could be a "legitimate f-up". Normally, most of these unsafe-url protection and detection is automated in something with the scale of Twitter. Just like URL-shorteners often are (were?) "seemingly randomly" banned, because a portion of the shared urls are…

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Seems reductive.

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

#520

Post by alt227 »

ben_w wrote: post #507
alt227 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Did it this time, even, despite what they say.

I disagree.

> He did.

Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.

Post reply on HN