7 ms·

So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming. There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able t

So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming. There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny.

cal5k 6y ago
But - what if the Proud Boys can drink from the same water supply? Something must be done! The American media is a fantastic machine for manufacturing a bogeyman then discarding it once it is no longer useful for narrative purposes.
- swirepe 6y ago
  I have a list of communists here...
- um_ya 6y ago
  Say what you want about Trump, but at least he didn't come up with some new "Patriot Act" given the opportunity coronavirus provided. Never let a good disaster go to waste. Seems like free speech is on a tight rope after the "insurrection". Sure didn't waste any time.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    But the current president did author the original patriot act (the bill it was based on), so there is hope that terrorism can be stopped from spreading on these platforms.
ekianjo 6y ago
> So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming. Next, I seriously expect Amazon and Google at some point to turn on the microphones on all Echo and Home devices and make sure that nobody ever says anything outrageous in their private homes. Failing that, report them to the authorities, or better, doxx them with social media mobs.
- stanmancan 6y ago
  Or you know, cellphones.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Good point.
- blahblahblogger 6y ago
  I don't use my Home device ever, but its been plugged in for so long. The other day while walking by it, I decided to just unplug it. Why not? I put a cover over my laptop cam.
analyte123 6y ago
Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned with misuse of a private platform called Airvibe, known to be used for many extremist activities including the 9/11 attacks and the Columbine killings. “Airvibe lets domestic terrorists communicate without any moderation whatsoever, completely out of the reach of standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed trust and safety committees” said Vox news correspondent Casey Newton. However, new tools for combatting abuse on the Airvibe network are being researched, including implantable vocal modulators and persistent environmental smart home microphones. For parents concerned about what their kids are hearing on Airvibe, CBS News recommends substituting Airvibe time with safe platforms monitored for misinformation like Facebook or Youtube.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  Well so far it looks like Signal is doing a good job of routing around this damage.
- tacitusarc 6y ago
  Airvibe is, apparently, a sex toy.
na85 6y ago
>There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny. I think this is what the Republicans would have you believe, but I think the left extremists are more about simply pursuing people who they believe as toxic to wherever they retreat.
a254613e 6y ago
>no one should be able to think or speak free Who says that? People, myself included, don't want specific harmful for society groups to be allowed to speak free, not that nobody's allowed to say anything. Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind. In fact, I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad. That being said, I think the frameworks used to prevent that at the moment have a lot of potential for abuse, especially from private companies. And it's something that should be improved upon, and normal people should have privacy as much as possible.
- xyzzy123 6y ago
  Ok. I'm not sure that "speaking free" is a useful concept. I think it's more useful to discuss controls on public vs private speech. I believe that two consenting "nazis" should be able to speak privately on e2e platforms, mainly because this is the same mechanism that will let consenting marxists, christians, muslims, satanists, pro-life advocates, pro choice advocates... escape mainstream outrage. I realise this is a security risk, in the same way that not having microphones everywhere in public spaces is a security risk. Child exploitation and plotting terrorist acts are the "biggest hills to die on" in this space, but investigators have always had "targeted" means to deal with these without resorting to mass surveillance. I believe existing powers are adequate to investigate these crimes. I'm also generally ok with mainstream censorship of broadcast or social media. Public speech is a different animal.
- fourthark 6y ago
  There are no things that "absolutely everyone agrees are bad", kind of by definition. So, who decides, or is there a cutoff on what percentage of people must believe an idea for it to be allowed to be communicated?
  - a254613e 6y ago
    Not everything's a programming language where you need to define exact thresholds for something to be either `True` or `False`. I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we? And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.

cal5k 6y ago

But - what if the Proud Boys can drink from the same water supply? Something must be done! The American media is a fantastic machine for manufacturing a bogeyman then discarding it once it is no longer useful for narrative purposes.

swirepe 6y ago
I have a list of communists here...
um_ya 6y ago
Say what you want about Trump, but at least he didn't come up with some new "Patriot Act" given the opportunity coronavirus provided. Never let a good disaster go to waste. Seems like free speech is on a tight rope after the "insurrection". Sure didn't waste any time.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  But the current president did author the original patriot act (the bill it was based on), so there is hope that terrorism can be stopped from spreading on these platforms.

ekianjo 6y ago

> So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming. Next, I seriously expect Amazon and Google at some point to turn on the microphones on all Echo and Home devices and make sure that nobody ever says anything outrageous in their private homes. Failing that, report them to the authorities, or better, doxx them with social media mobs.

stanmancan 6y ago
Or you know, cellphones.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Good point.
blahblahblogger 6y ago
I don't use my Home device ever, but its been plugged in for so long. The other day while walking by it, I decided to just unplug it. Why not? I put a cover over my laptop cam.

analyte123 6y ago

Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned with misuse of a private platform called Airvibe, known to be used for many extremist activities including the 9/11 attacks and the Columbine killings. “Airvibe lets domestic terrorists communicate without any moderation whatsoever, completely out of the reach of standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed trust and safety committees” said Vox news correspondent Casey Newton. However, new tools for combatting abuse on the Airvibe network are being researched, including implantable vocal modulators and persistent environmental smart home microphones. For parents concerned about what their kids are hearing on Airvibe, CBS News recommends substituting Airvibe time with safe platforms monitored for misinformation like Facebook or Youtube.

artificialLimbs 6y ago
Well so far it looks like Signal is doing a good job of routing around this damage.
tacitusarc 6y ago
Airvibe is, apparently, a sex toy.

na85 6y ago

>There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny. I think this is what the Republicans would have you believe, but I think the left extremists are more about simply pursuing people who they believe as toxic to wherever they retreat.

a254613e 6y ago

>no one should be able to think or speak free Who says that? People, myself included, don't want specific harmful for society groups to be allowed to speak free, not that nobody's allowed to say anything. Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind. In fact, I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad. That being said, I think the frameworks used to prevent that at the moment have a lot of potential for abuse, especially from private companies. And it's something that should be improved upon, and normal people should have privacy as much as possible.

xyzzy123 6y ago
Ok. I'm not sure that "speaking free" is a useful concept. I think it's more useful to discuss controls on public vs private speech. I believe that two consenting "nazis" should be able to speak privately on e2e platforms, mainly because this is the same mechanism that will let consenting marxists, christians, muslims, satanists, pro-life advocates, pro choice advocates... escape mainstream outrage. I realise this is a security risk, in the same way that not having microphones everywhere in public spaces is a security risk. Child exploitation and plotting terrorist acts are the "biggest hills to die on" in this space, but investigators have always had "targeted" means to deal with these without resorting to mass surveillance. I believe existing powers are adequate to investigate these crimes. I'm also generally ok with mainstream censorship of broadcast or social media. Public speech is a different animal.
fourthark 6y ago
There are no things that "absolutely everyone agrees are bad", kind of by definition. So, who decides, or is there a cutoff on what percentage of people must believe an idea for it to be allowed to be communicated?
- a254613e 6y ago
  Not everything's a programming language where you need to define exact thresholds for something to be either `True` or `False`. I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we? And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.