And few days ago JD Vance went to Munich to say to EU leaders that they "there is a problem of freedom of speech in Europe"...
[deleted]
X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
591–600 of 834 posts
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep it totally is and you are fine to say that about me or anyone else. If someone takes you up on that offer and you pay them, that crosses from free speech into illegal activity and you will be put in jail. But you are totally fine to talk about if you want.
And if someone takes me up on that offer and I don't pay? "Woops, just joking" but you're dead. Also, you never were in that situation, otherwise you would know there's no way to be fine while people are plotting to maim you. Or if you are, your family sure won't be.
Not really sure what you are talking about here.
If someone takes you up on that offer then they are breaking the law and committing an offense, regardless of what you said or did or didnt pay them.
If I tell you to go jump off a cliff and you do it, am I liable for murder?
I think you need to back off a little bit and stop trying to invent situations that you think fit your idea of what I think about implications of murder.
I think its fine to say what you want, thats it. You can agree or disagree with me to your hearts content, but do it amicably :)
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems reductive.
But in the absence of credible information to the contrary, it's not wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... when a system's side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behavior is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behavior with a more straightforwardly descriptive view
Is the useSkin parameter something you manually added? I am not logged in and when I navigate to another page the parameter (and with it the skin preference) disappears.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those platforms have not, however, been billing themselves as champions of unfettered free speech before handing out arbitrary unexplained bans when their feelings got hurt or they disliked the speech.
Companies market themselves in ways that disagree with how the companies operate all the time. Marketing is frequently misaligned with what the company or product actually is.
So your take on it is "oh he's a hypocritical liar but it's OK because he's not the only one"?
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#595Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans aren’t in the loop for automated bans. That has no relationship to staffing size. 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…
> This is likely a problem with the link banning algo not treating signal.me as high volume enough to prevent an automated ban. And rightfully so. Despite being discussed a lot here, Signal is not very popular or well-known. Even TFA felt the need to start by explaining what Signal is. TFA then adds: “This request looks like it might be automated” reads another prompt. “To protect our users from spam and other malici…
[flagged]
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not wrong. It's an elegant idea in it's simplicity, but there's zero reason to think this heuristic is more valid than any other, and in my personal experience this line of thinking is usually wrong.
What kinds of experiences have shown this heuristic to be not so useful to you?
People often can't see past their own hostility when figuring out what a system 'does'. And now they have have a clever sounding way to pretend that they're describing a system with detached reason, not just describing their attitude towards the system.
It's like a art review where a writer - completely unaware of what they're doing - talks only about the work, but says nothing about the work and opens a window into their soul. A lot of people don't even recognize when it happens in that context. It's even easier for a speaker to deceive a listener (and themselves) in the context of speaking on systems. Systems thinking is hard and almost everyone is terrible at it.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except that... They are? Of course not all of them, but those with enough reach or power to truly harm his reputation - such as journalists investigating him. He's not disappearing "Mark0394893838444" for saying "Musk is a dummy lol" but what does that proves? Meanwhile Musk has already banned the accounts of journalists for the crime of being too critical of him (on top of frivolous lawsuits clearly aimed at drainin…
> but what does that proves?
That proves that its ok to criticise Musk on Twitter/X, which is what the OP was denying.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit. This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way. And while we're on this point, there's such a thing as vexation litigation. You should look that up too. Because words are used to communicate between parties, one cannot unilater…
> This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way.
Yeah fair enough, I am not a laywer and so am not knowledgable on exact legal definitions. However you argued your point as if he was successful, which he is not, and so your point is moot until a ruling.
No need to go off on other tangents that I have not mentioned anything about, then again you have the right to free speech so feel free to rattle on about whatever you want!
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will go with "legitimate f-up" too. Elon Musk has been pretty vocal about Signal in the past, mostly positively. If blocking Signal URLs has been intentional, he would have probably have mentioned it somewhere. Shortened URLs are dubious by default. It is also possible that there really is a lot of spam/scam happening on Signal right now with signal.me URLs as an entry point. I mean, why not? Every messaging platfo…
Are links to mastodon still banned on twitter? Because that was a thing after Musk took over. So much for being a free speech absolutist. You're making the mistake of taking a (communal + antagonistic) narcissist at face value. They are known to lie to suit their current goals and when those goals are achieved, they will lie to suit their new goals, whether the lies are congruent with each other or not. This is a guy…
It allows links to bsky and Mastodon posts, but it doesn't auto-summarize bsky posts at the moment.