Earlier quoted context omitted.
i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money
I saw your comment and saw it getting downvoted or flagged but it is useful to have a discussion so that others similarly inclined can potentially learn something that they obviously don't already understand. I reproduce that comment here in case it somehow disappears. >i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money If you're concerned about t…
X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
651–660 of 834 posts
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#652Earlier quoted context omitted.
i voted for that, i voted for the destruction of the federal government because it's bankrupting us by stealing our money
This aspect of America has always struck me as the most bizarre: the most vicious enemies of the American state are Americans.
We have Reagan to thank for it.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#653Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right? If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it b…
> If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted. My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it. I'm fact I'm glad tha…
> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.
What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to add the statement, "Sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from malice."
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from negligence" FTFY :)
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#655Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of antisemite: a person who is prejudiced against Jewish people Prejudice is completely different to hate. They are often associated but are not the same. > I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today. You seem very quick to label and categorise people into boxes about what they think about. Be careful, that is a very d…
> Definition of antisemite Your abridged definition is your cartoonish admission that you're aware that you're wrong. With just a little more cleverness you could have easily avoided that reveal and actually challenged me. > You seem very quick to label... Ah yes, the old, "labeling the labelers is the real problem here" routine. I'm seeing now that you're just kind of a lazy troll—boring and unimaginative. This is w…
Theres a main difference between you and I here which is becoming quite apparent at this point.
I respect your right to think and say anything you like. I have no issue with you or your opinions, and you are free to express them against me as you wish. This is the whole basis for all my posts as can plainly be seen.
You seem to have very strong feelings against me, resorting to labelling and name calling very quickly. You dont seem to respect my opinion or right to have one. You seem to think I am 'wrong' in the general sense, yet have nothing other than your opinion of me, a random person on the internet, to back that up.
Carry on with your offense throwing, I completely respect your right to express yourself in that way and will not tell you you are wrong or you should stop:)
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#656And 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"...
Everyone knows it.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#658Earlier 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…
> Humans aren’t in the loop for automated bans. My point is that this _shouldn't_ have been purely automated, but having fewer people to review things forces more things to be automated.
The first is that spammers automate so if you don't then they're always much faster. By the time your humans are paying attention and have made a decision it's too late, all the spam (scams, frauds, malware sites...) was already delivered. In the next spam run everything will have changed, so, decisions made by that point are useless.
The second is that your suggestion contains an unstated premise that the human evaluators would have somehow more information to work with than an automated system, or would reach a different decision. In reality they don't and wouldn't. URL reputation systems like this are triggered by spam attacks. For a certain window of time there's a high probability that any message containing a specific domain name will be flagged by users as spam, so the system short-circuits that and starts classifying all messages of unknown status containing a link to that domain as spam. This works well because spammers usually want their targets to visit a website.
So the human evaluators in this case will see a message like:
"URL domain signal.me has 67% chance of spam and rising, confirm block? Y/N"
and the humans will always press Y because obviously (a) it means that such a decision is right more often than it's wrong and (b) the domain name is normally meaningless anyway. The block will be removed a bit later once the spammers go away.
In this case, it's tempting to think that some human in a cheap labor country would somehow see this message and think "ah! signal.me! clearly a domain linked to the super cool Signal messenger, which I personally like, so I won't block it even though this might cause a lot of people to be victimized by criminals". But they wouldn't and shouldn't. The domain even looks phishy, it's quite surprising to learn that it's a real Signal linked domain.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#659Ironically, 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—…
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I do agree with you in cases where the system is being continually refined, but I don't think the quote talks about changing systems, only about constant ones.