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

721–730 of 834 posts

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

#721

Post by philipdavis »

kortilla wrote: post #572
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)?

> Do people in the US still use X? If yes, why? Are you seriously asking that question? If so, I suggest looking at the nov election results. The votes for Trump were for this (his relationship to Elon and intention of “having him make the government efficient” were well known in advance of the election).

I feel only MAGA are happy & comfortable staying on X, voting for trump != maga

hence the question

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

#722

Post by _heimdall »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #708
_heimdall wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the tricky line, isn't it? Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection? My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a…

> The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A. However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twit…

We pretty much agree here. The contradiction of claiming free speech while doing things like banning Signal links is frustrating for sure.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.

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

#723

Post by 52-6F-62 »

28304283409234 wrote: post #581

Shoshana Zuboff was so right it is scary. The name ('Surveillance Capitalism') put me on the wrong foot as I already knew about the surveillance part. But what I found most scary was the part where the tech companies turned from surveillance to influence. Once you have these billions of people using only your platform to view the world, it is trivial alter their view of the world. And thereby changing policital curre…

The dark ages is the plan according to Curtis Yarvin, their “prophet”.

A network of techno-feudal states run by a joint-stock corporation headed by a CEO with absolute power. Like Hunger Games, fancy dress, bad tans, and all.

It’s really lame and shortsighted. Never mind philosophically broken.

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

#725

Post by Dylan16807 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #658
saghm wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, I worked on abuse for a few years and gave a tech talk on it at Twitter. You really do want these things to be fully automated for two reasons. 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 everythin…

I don't think you should block a major domain because of a spam spike. If you think the entire domain is compromised, then send in a human to look, otherwise focus on the accounts that are sending spam links.

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

#726

Post by handoflixue »

philipdavis wrote: post #720
handoflixue wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If yes, why? Some people are smart, insightful, and for some reason insist on only posting on X. I don't see the harm in continuing to follow them, even if I do wish they'd choose a different site to post on (I expect a lot of people also have less techie friends and family that only post on a single social media site - I've had accounts all over the place trying to keep track of some old friends)

I guess those smart, insightful people are staying on X because - their targeting audience are on X - they are rich and do not really care what the platform owner does - they will be very happy to join the owner when offered such opportunities For people who are the target audience of those people, I guess - they voted for this, and they are happily watching the federal gov falling apart - they convinced themselves t…

Are you actually curious, or did you just want an excuse for your pre-scripted soap box rant?

It's a mix of indie artists, old friends, and a few people who still think it's worthwhile to try and do outreach, fight against disinformation, etc.. I'm really not sure why you feel such an urge to insult people you've never met, but it's extremely rude and does nothing productive.

> nothing political about using X

I use an ad-blocker, don't have a paid account, and have 0 followers. What benefit do you think Elon Musk is getting here?

I dare say your grocery bill is responsible for supporting far more evil than anything I'm engaged in here.

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

#727

Post by scarab92 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #725
mike_hearn wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I worked on abuse for a few years and gave a tech talk on it at Twitter. You really do want these things to be fully automated for two reasons. 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 everythin…

I don't think you should block a major domain because of a spam spike. If you think the entire domain is compromised, then send in a human to look, otherwise focus on the accounts that are sending spam links.

Meanwhile thousands of users are receiving links to malware and phishing attacks while human raters are twiddling their thumbs.

The parent is correct, these systems should be automated. Automated systems can respond faster and more accurately than humans. Humans should only be involved to improve the system and correct any mistakes it makes after the fact.

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

#728

Post by lostdog »

nailer wrote: post #709
doodlebugging wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The Inspectors General and their OIG employees are the federal employees with the mandate to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in every federal program regardless of size. There are more than 1 million 150-159 year old Americans that receive social security and America is funding trans comic books for children in Peru. Do you think the OIG was doing a good job?

I'm sure you heard that from a trustworthy person who provided clear evidence? Perhaps you could share some of that evidence?

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

#729

Post by scarab92 »

torlok wrote: post #718
sltkr wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might simply mean your opinions fall in the narrow band of views that are permitted to be expressed. It proves nothing about freedom of speech in general. Even in North Korea, people are allowed to freely express their love for their Dear Leader. Those who express a different view are swiftly disposed of. If you love Dear Leader you could live your entire life believing that you and everyone else has free speech,…

AfD is a Nazi party, and nobody's silencing them, despite overwhelming opposition in all EU countries. If you listen to EU parliament speeches, there's all kinds of radical political views being shared during debates. Vance came to Europe to peddle US culture wars and got laughed out.

> AfD is a Nazi party.

It feels inappropriate that progressives have decided that it's okay to use Nazi as a generic insult for mainstream right wing parties. It waters down the true horrors of the Nazi party.

Anyway, as to censorship coming from Germany:

"Germany submits the highest number of legal demands for user data to X within the European Union, with ~87% of these requests targeting speech-related offenses. "

https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1891593848771707233

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

#730

Post by jppittma »

alt227 wrote: post #376
jppittma wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate how the word "disagree" is used to strip all nuance out of political conversation. If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you? There's a line somewhere around politic…

> If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Yes we do, we disagree on that statement. > Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you? Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us…

> Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim,

I think the promotion of liberalism and the lack of critical thinking has created a society of fanatics. For the vast majority of disagreements, it's good to try and understand other perspectives and to work towards compromise. What compromise should the German jews have offered the Nazis? What insights could they have gained from understanding the Nazi perspective?

> You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.

Everything Hilter/Stalin did was legal. When families were gassed and thrown into ovens, that was legal. In fact, it was illegal to impede them. That started as somebody's political opinion, they were able to foment support for it, and it happened.

And finally, I understand what the law is in the US. The US basically allows any speech that doesn't threaten the government's monopoly on violence. I'm saying the Europeans are right to criminalize some political ideas. There's been no slippery slope in German because they don't let you wear swastikas.

Post reply on HN