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

541–550 of 834 posts

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

#541

Post by scarab92 »

rsolva wrote: post #335
redbell wrote: post #174

Ironically, three years ago, Musk encouraged the use of Signal and tweeted: " Use Signal ", https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1347165127036977153 Edit: In my opinion, Elon Musk initially endorsed Signal because of its strong encryption, security, and commitment to privacy. Now, he's blocking it for those very same reasons—what a blatant double standard! On a related note, one of the key advantages of the modern internet—…

He may use Signal, but he does not want people on X to advertise their presence on any competing platforms. It is a childish and protectionist policy, and in no way align with his Free Speech® claims. It was the same when URLs to Mastodon/Fediverse instances was banned on X, in an attempt to hamper the network effect for those who migrated. Meta does the same with Pixelfed these days, to hamper migration away from In…

It's probably just a spam filter going awry.

Signal links are odd, in that all the identifies are after the #, so to a spam filter this just looks like a single url, https://signal.me , being sent out in mass.

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

#542

Post by intended »

alt227 wrote: post #490
intended wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. What you are saying is actively happening right now. Certain people dont like that another certain group of people have been allowed back onto Twitter, and so they are going in droves to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads/TruthSocial etc. Twitter has received an 87% drop in revenue since reinstating previously blocked accounts. Id say people are…

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

>What you are saying is actively happening right now.

Oh. I am wrong.

SO we don't need to enforce rules on free speech, People are able to choose who to interact with.

>This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see

So we SHOULD enforce rules of free speech, because people dont want to hear what others are saying?

So we should have free speech, but we should control listening?

>We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.

Wait really? Someone is suing the President for threatening Meta/Zuckerberg? Who?

Would you be on board with launching a lawsuit against a government which threatened a media firm ?

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

#543

Post by throwaway5752 »

gosub100 wrote: post #540
tremon wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, given that as an official government department they're subject to FOIA requests and as such have an obligation to persist their documentation.

* Unless you're secretary of state.

What happened in that case, and do you believe the same standard should be applied currently?

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

#546

Post by api »

scarab92 wrote: post #519
NelsonMinar wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Seems reductive.

It's a good "razor" to strip away rationalizations and sophistry used to defend perverse or failed systems and ideas.

E.g. the "purpose" of fascism is nihilistic violence and the "purpose" of communism is rule by a bureaucratic elite that is somehow more equal than everyone else. All the sophistry is bullshit.

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

#547

Post by itishappy »

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.

> It's not like you can have automated tests with million of random links.

Why not? They were already filtering millions of random links with the existing system. Saving some of those results to run regressions against before making changes to critical infrastructure should be trivial.

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

#548

Post by soundwave106 »

lyu07282 wrote: post #315
andrepd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly does not come as a shock to him. He knows what he is doing. The funny thing is if he was Russian he would be called an "oligarch" in every news piece. Since he's American he's an entrepreneur :)

Also how liberals were celebrating Elons "genius" just a decade ago will never not be funny to me, they also don't seem to mind Gates at all. I don't think they have much of a problem with oligarchy, they just want a liberal oligarchy instead.

You may want to look up under whose presidency it was when the United States Justice Department sued Microsoft in 1998. :)

Musk was far, far less political (at least regarding his public persona) even 10 years ago; his persona was more heavily futurism oriented. Electric cars to help mitigate climate change, colonizing Mars, that kind of stuff. It wasn't really a "liberal" or "conservative" thing then. Would've been nice if he stuck on this path IMHO.

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

#549

Post by spicy-punk-fog »

camillomiller wrote: post #320
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.

Look up “leggi fascistissime”. It’s appalling how people don’t see the obvious playbook that’s unfolding here, down to the claims of “defending democracy”

Most people are living automatons who find excuses in being too busy, too scared or too confident in believing "that's history, it can never happen again, we're living in a modern world" to notice things unfolding around, which is exactly what brought fascism to life back then.

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

#550

Post by intended »

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.

I guess.. it must be shocking to you? Seemingly absurd perhaps.

You can't say what you want in a shopping mall. They can decide who gets to stay in their premises, and for whatever reason they can eject you.

All the free speech cases, have been about government stopping speech. Whether its about deceny laws, or sedition - its always been the government vs a person / corporation.

So yeah - these have been the rights you lived under for all your life. Its never changed.

That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space.

Post reply on HN