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

821–830 of 834 posts

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

#821

Post by alt227 »

Y_Y wrote: post #762
alt227 wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like your opinion, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with what you are saying. > 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,…

I don't have a good idea for how to determine whether a threat is sincere or not, or whether or not either party believes it to be so. On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and…

Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am enjoying mulling over your responses.

> You might well say...

Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.

> I have a most marvellous answer to those

Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)

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

#822

Post by Gormo »

muddi900 wrote: post #818
Gormo wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not quite correct. A lot of subcultures and echo-chamber type social contexts certainly do have extreme policing of extremely particular taboo subject matters, but in more general contexts, especially in American society, there's a strong expectation that people ought to be able to speak their mind without excessive interference, and there's usually a high bar to what constitutes subject matters taboo enou…

No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a person. And that is in public. In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression. What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relat…

> No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization.

You can't control what other opinions people will have of you, or suppress their expression of those opinions, that's true. But that itself is part and parcel of freedom of speech. The social consequences of expressing opinions that other people find offensive or disgusting are yours to bear, and may indeed motivate others to want to have little to do with you.

But this is juxtaposed against an expectation of freedom of speech as a cultural norm -- the point above is precisely that the way this is expressed in other contexts is different from the way it's expressed with respect to the political state. So we do have an expectation that formal institutions will not engage in prior restraint, or punish people for speech itself within most (but not necessarily all) categories, etc.

For example, people might find it reasonable that someone be dismissed from a job for making overtly racist comments in the office. But the same people would consider it inappropriate if, for example, an employee was fired for expressing that he does not like the boss's favorite movie.

There are absolutely different boundaries and different weighing of consequences between how we apply the norm of freedom of speech to political vs. social situations, but to say that we do not adhere to freedom of speech as a cultural norm at all is quite incorrect.

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

#823

Post by codeguro »

timacles wrote: post #638
stainablesteel wrote: post #515

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

You think the US is bankrupting you by stealing your money? Specifically: USAID, FAA, Government Watchdog agencies, and whatever other group that has been dismantled by now? Those are the high priority agencies stealing our hard earned money? Not the guys who all of a sudden have a 100 billion dollars since 2010?

I'm more concerned about the members of congress and senate that became multimillionares on a $174k/year salary.

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

#824

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

alt227 wrote: post #463
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with ei…

Thats fine, we can disagree :) I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that. Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.

Yeah, sure, you can have your opinions, I have never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that your opinion is absurd and apologetic of hatred and racism.

It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. Merely existing as a religious or ethnic group is not the same as expressing an opinion, and it doesn't legitimize the expression of unqualified hatred towards the same group. We should tolerate the expression of opinions which we disagree with, but I think there is a limit, and we should not tolerate intolerance.

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

#825

Post by guappa »

intended wrote: post #769
guappa wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space. It hasn't worked. But you're too set in "USA IS PERFECT!" mindset to objectively think about it.

Oh. I come from and am In a country with much stricter Free Speech laws. I think all of them are pretty crap for today’s environment. But yes - the operating definition of Free speech, the one enforceable in courts, the one you have lived under, is the one I outlined. Namely - no government over reach in speech. Not that people can’t do what they want as private individuals, and now corporations. So you can in theory…

And in afghanistan it's illegal for women to go to school. Since that is the law, we must accept it and make no attempt to ever change it, correct?

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

#826

Post by guappa »

alphabettsy wrote: post #788
guappa wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you don't understand that the point of free speech is the ability to be heard by others, and if you're shadow-banned you're effectively just writing a private diary? I mean, ok you have this right. What do you think was the INTENTION of this right? Do you think they intended for people to freely mumble to themselves or to tell their ideas to others?

You seem to have an incomplete understanding. Freedom of Speech goes hand in hand with Freedom of Association. You are free to speak and spread your ideas, you are not free to compel others to help you to do so and you are not entitled to an audience. I don’t have to let you stand on my porch to speak anymore than Instagram has to allow you to post things or Costco has to allow you to hold lectures in the food court.

If you sell paper to anyone BUT me, or let anyone who pays a fee stand on your porch and talk for 10 minutes except me, yes that should count as a felony.

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

#827

Post by guappa »

cowboylowrez wrote: post #817
guappa wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you only get your information from zionist propaganda. No point talking to you then :)

>Ah, you only get your information from zionist propaganda. I wouldn't agree with that, what I try to do is to gather the news the best I can, try to include the historical context and then try to reason about where the conflict exists. My intent with this process requires that by necessity I DO try to see the other side(s), because conflicts often arise from incompatible worldviews, so what are these worldviews? Oft…

> I wouldn't agree with that

If you did differently, you wouldn't have written what you wrote :)

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

#828

Post by muddi900 »

Gormo wrote: post #822
muddi900 wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a person. And that is in public. In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression. What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relat…

> No there isn't. You can't, rightfully, campaign to make rape legal for a day without your life being ruined through ostracization. You can't control what other opinions people will have of you, or suppress their expression of those opinions, that's true. But that itself is part and parcel of freedom of speech. The social consequences of expressing opinions that other people find offensive or disgusting are yours to…

These are a lot of words to state you disagree with your previous post.

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

#829

Post by mbs159 »

93po wrote: post #699
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)?

its the only social media platform that isn't image and video heavy, can consistently have non-bot and non-fake and non-clickbait material of substance (if you curate who you you follow well), provides awesome filtering options out of the box for stuff like keywords (i literally had to make a browser extension to filter reddit crap out better), and has a lot of interesting people posting entertaining non-image stuff…

> non-bot and non-fake and non-clickbait material of substance

This is if you actively stay off politics. Taking just a small step in and it suddenly turns into 4chan /pol/

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

#830

Post by kortilla »

timacles wrote: post #705
kortilla wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one knew Musk would be running amok dismantling government institutions like a rabid dog Trump approval ratings are at a high. His supporters are clearly happy with what’s going on. The question was quite simple, it was about why anyone would use X. There are at least 60 million people that are happy with what is going on and like to be on X, which is an echo chamber of what they like. Nothing about what I said…

This is all ignoring that we live in a world almost completely dominated by disinformation. The media have clearly aligned themselves to not report on whats actually happening. Right wing supporters get a carefully curated "view" of whats going on. Left wing media pushes outrage over ever minuscule detail while purposefully obfuscating whats really going on. > This is exactly the type of outcome Trump supporters were…

> What is the political reality of the US right now? You're conflating the peoples' response to the information they're getting to the actual reality: The US government is being destroyed by a hostile group of actors, with most likely criminal motives.

You’re still not understanding what I’m saying. You can hand-wring about “the destruction of the government”. That part is fine because it’s complaints about actions by DOGE.

What isn’t fine is to pretend that nobody supports this. “All the republicans I know have regret, etc” is all bullshit. Not just Trump supporters, everyone who voted for him.

Trump approval ratings are at a high, they love the destruction.

That is the reality in the US, the right loathes the government, including “the moderate republicans” who voted for them. Like all Trump topics they don’t say it out loud, but the polls certainly indicate they are still on the MAGA train.

X gives you an unfiltered view of that side of the country. Take it or leave it.

Post reply on HN