551–560 of 834 posts
https://cornucopia.se/2025/02/forsvarsmakten-infor-krav-pa-s... (Swedish)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
I think you buried the lede in your footnote here. Even if it is just a mistake, it's a pretty avoidable one by having a human in the loop to review changes to start blocking URLs to such a commonly linked site. If he thinks that it's "efficient" not to retain enough people to be able to notice that URL fragments and hashtags use the same symbol, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an "office of government efficien…
This is likely a problem with the link banning algo not treating signal.me as high volume enough to prevent an automated ban.
That same logic most definitely exists at well-staffed companies and the internet is full of stories of people getting screwed by these systems. Google sinking legit companies with no recourse, locking out Gmail users who had decades of their life there, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Free speech” disappeared almost immediately after the Twitter purchase. Along with all of Musks supporters changing from “we need free speech”, to “Musk owns the platform, he can do what he wants.” Pre-Musk Twitter was more about free speech, except it was trying to fight bots, hate speech and disinformation.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's reversing the argument. I'm not saying quitting X is bad for X, I'm saying quitting X is good for you. Nobody's completely immune to whatever that sociological experiment is turning into and staying on X is likely to influence your ethics, morals and standards in an objectively negative way.
Even personally, you couldn't possibly know whether it's positive or negative for a random stranger on the Internet, because it depends on how much they use it and what they use it for. For example, keeping a Twitter account in case someone wants to contact you seems pretty harmless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can still say anything you like on X You cannot even say the word "cisgender" on X.
Looks like you can... https://x.com/MissinN0/status/1891488896963252656
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…
I think you buried the lede in your footnote here. Even if it is just a mistake, it's a pretty avoidable one by having a human in the loop to review changes to start blocking URLs to such a commonly linked site. If he thinks that it's "efficient" not to retain enough people to be able to notice that URL fragments and hashtags use the same symbol, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an "office of government efficien…
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…
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.
Moreover, it’s not that simple. Racists can express themselves. I was talking about racist discourse, not racists themselves. Racism is a hate speech, which has nothing to do with, for example, the right to enjoy one's body and have an abortion as a woman or the ability to express one's gender identity—something that, according to all scientific studies and meta-analyses on the subject, clearly improves the well-being of trans people.
I know very well that racists are experts at playing the victim and making it seem like they are the ones facing repression, but who runs the country? Who are the journalists on television? Are they women or men? White? Rich?
It’s outrageous to claim that the richest man in the world—Elon Musk, a racist, antisemitic, misogynistic white supremacist—is supposedly "censored" and unable to express himself freely! Remind me of a time in American history when a woman had as much power as Elon Musk over the country, or even over other countries (as we see with ALD in Germany)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> COBOL quirk where the zero datetime is 1875 This is a piece of misinformation coming from Twitter/X post.
20 may 1875 is the reference date of ISO 8601:2004. You don't need to trust me on that, you can just go check the standard. Or you can claim that it's misinformation too. Up to you.
Particularly ironic given that DOGE is reported to be using Signal as its comms platform. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42579873
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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-doge-records-public-inf...
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the right one: they're fascists and the rules are not applicable to them.