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

641–650 of 834 posts

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

#641

Post by oever »

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.

"The purpose of a system is what it does."

This is only true for systems that works perfectly. If the implementation if flawed, the system can do something different from its purpose.

Claiming "The purpose of a system is what it does." is like claiming that software bugs do not exist.

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

#642

Post by scarab92 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #493
scarab92 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have completely missed what I was saying. Journalists get suspended from social media platforms for doxing all the time. These events are not newsworthy, and wikipedia articles are not written about them. The problem isn't the content of this article, it is that the article exists at all. It only exists because wikipedia editors apply different notability thresholds to one side of politics than the other.

You're making up rules that no one is required to follow. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to appease you, it exits in order to educate you.

[flagged]

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

#644

Post by lyu07282 »

soundwave106 wrote: post #548
lyu07282 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But this is exactly my point and you don't even realize it, you think a billionaire helping mitigate climate change or colonizing Mars is a good thing and not political. You don't realize that what you described is exactly what I mean by "liberal oligarchy".

You don't mind if a billionaire is "helping" humanity. What I'm saying is that a billionaire doing anything grand like that AT ALL, IS oligarchy, it is not the billionaires who should mitigate climate change or do space exploration, it is all of us, collectively, through public funding, steered by a representative democracy, that should do these things, not singular private individual billionaires like Musk or Gates.

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

#645

Post by _zagj »

matwood wrote: post #22
jgaa wrote: post #7

So much for Elons "Free Speech"! This may come as a shock to him: Free Speech means to allow people to say something that he disagree with. Something that may hurt his interests or even his ego. Free speech is not to allow people to say things he agree with or don't care about.

“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.

> about free speech, except it was trying to fight bots, hate speech

> about free speech

> fight hate speech

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

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

#646

Post by insane_dreamer »

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)?

Stopped using X when Elon took over, and then finally deleted my account (which I had had for many years, was an early adopter of Twitter before it was highly popular) when Elon went full MAGA-nazi. No regrets.

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

#647

Post by [deleted] »

stainablesteel wrote: post #515
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

[deleted]

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

#648

Post by dathinab »

davidw wrote: post #560
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.

They declared that the DOGE stuff is official presidential records and thus not subject to FOIA. 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.

> They declared that the DOGE stuff is official presidential records and thus not subject to FOIA.

which is pretty absurd and you would need to have a really corrupt court IMHO for this to hold up

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

#649

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

stainablesteel wrote: post #515
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

You voted for a $4T increase in deficit as a tax gift for billionaires, to save you money?

Please explain the logic.

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

#650

Post by davidw »

dathinab wrote: post #648
davidw wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They declared that the DOGE stuff is official presidential records and thus not subject to FOIA. 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.

> They declared that the DOGE stuff is official presidential records and thus not subject to FOIA. which is pretty absurd and you would need to have a really corrupt court IMHO for this to hold up

The same one that declared that presidents are above the law and that the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment is basically meaningless? The one that slow-walked a bunch of cases related to presidential crimes?

I don't think it's actually hopeless - they have constrained him at times. But I would also avoid getting my hopes up.

Post reply on HN