5 ms·

I mean, people's views on things should change based on evidence. This isn't 'i disagree with their politics so I need to change the platform to silence them'.

I mean, people's views on things should change based on evidence. This isn't 'i disagree with their politics so I need to change the platform to silence them'. There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this (though it was social media mostly). Let's not abstract away what happened to downplay how serious the event was. I don't know what signal should do, but it's strange to be surprised that given a new understanding of the world people would revisit their principles. That's what people should do. People should not be intransigent. Also, personally I don't think signal should compromise the quality of their product though. E2E is too important.

mc32 6y ago
Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists. That's not how insurrections happen. It's a media blown overreaction because it helps their narrative. Look at how insurrections happen elsewhere. It's not done by selfie taking shamen. I mean WTF do they think? Only "their" revolutionaries can use the app, but others can't? It's like TOR. It can be used by dissidents but it can also be used by enemies of the state, yet the state believes on balance TOR does good.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists Just because it's a stupid insurrection doesn't mean it's not an insurrection.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Ok, so then so was Malheur and the siege of the Seattle police station.
    - girvo 6y ago
      You don’t see a difference between a local police station and your literal federal Capitol building filled with Senators?
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Insurrection is a very vague word, any kind of violent protest against authorities can be called an insurrection. Funny the summer insurrections don't get to have that label.
    - Klonoar 6y ago
      Mmmm, yes, let's compare: - A group storming the capitol of the US after being fed a steady stream of lies regarding an election result, with the President himself pushing them to go. versus - A group protesting after yet-another-person-of-color was murdered, pushing for equality and a check on police brutality. Totally checks out. ;P
      - roenxi 6y ago
        You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. We have to compare fringe to fringe here. The extremest fringe of the summer protests was burning cop cars and and a courthouse in one instance. There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. That is insurrection. Not going to achieve anything though so everyone ignored it at the time. It wasn't any more of a problem than the Capitol riots.
        Klonoar 6y ago
        >You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. I am not; I'm comparing the movements that led to each situation. You want to compare extremists, but the extremists are not the point - they'll always be there. The intent of the movements that caused these actions to happen are what matters, and it's fairly clear which side each falls on. Many of those instances of violence in the summer protests were reactionary and driven by police exercising unnecessary force, which has been documented in troves of video. Those who participated in the DC incident on the 6th were driven by a stream of misinformation, which has _also_ been well documented at this point. One wanted to believe in conspiracy theories and support a failure of a President, going so far as to listen to him to attempt to overthrow the government. The other one just wants equality. >There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. Yes, I live down the street from it. Having experienced it and lived around it, I would not classify it as anything remotely close to what was seen on January 6th in DC.
- flunhat 6y ago
  "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did... You deserved it."
- na85 6y ago
  >Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists They had knives and zip ties and intended to take hostages. The fact that they are incompetent does not obviate their intent.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-handcuffs-police-prosecutors-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-han...
    - na85 6y ago
      Ok? So the capitol Police are equally incompetent? Not sure what point you are making.
      - notadev 6y ago
        The point is they're refuting your claim of intent.
        na85 6y ago
        I don't see how
- girvo 6y ago
  They killed a police officer. Brutally assaulted others. Stole computers after breaking in.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm very sympathetic to the view that emergency action was justified at the time in response to the urgent threat. But if we're talking about permanently refactoring the principles of free speech, I'm not sure that a single bad event is really enough evidence to make any decisions on.
spijdar 6y ago
Hasn't the internet and communication tools like signal been used for many years now to coordinate far worse attacks? Not to mention the various crimes it will inevitably be used for. Surely the people involved are aware it will inevitably be used for child pornography, sex trafficking, arms trade, and a litany of other crimes. It's just the nature of true encryption. You take both the good and the bad, we've known this for a while now.
tailspin2019 6y ago
I agree with you. All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet if it becomes the platform of choice for an unsavoury audience. Neither of which they have much control over. I would be more worried if people at Signal were not thinking about this, debating the issues and reflecting on the direction of their product. I thought the article (despite the over-egged headline) was interesting and not particularly hysterical. What I don’t see here is anyone actually suggesting they compromise E2E or any of the fundamentals of the product that we like in Signal. I feel strongly that Signal needs to stay moving in the direction it’s heading - which is to be a no-bullshit, secure, E2E encrypted, reliable and open platform with none of the data-hoarding of its rivals. I do not see any harm in Signal self-reflecting in particular in light of recent events. A “head in the sand” approach seems worse. I’m surprised by the cynical comments here so far. How about we take a charitable read of this?
- ironman1478 6y ago
  Yeah you summed up what I was trying to say more clearly.
- mc32 6y ago
  > "both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet..." The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it. As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives. It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
stickfigure 6y ago
> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this ...which was handily rebuffed. You're overstating it. The question is: How much liberty and privacy are you willing to give up to prevent that from happening again? For me, the answer is zero. The next batch of idiots are welcome to come and take their turn getting arrested next week. It is offensive and disturbing yes, but not a real threat to democracy. And there's no 8chan in prison, so this problem will sort itself out eventually.
etempleton 6y ago
Freedom of speech, like any ideal or philosophy eventually reaches practical limits. Everything is bad in absolutes. Tech, particularly social tech, began with noble yet naive absolutist ideals surrounding speech which has led to ham-fisted over corrections and contradictory take-downs.
0x262d 6y ago
It's clear that some people have done some bad things, and they used the internet (mostly facebook but whatever) to communicate. There are 2 approaches to fixing this. 1 is to undercut the roots of radicalism and polarization. I would say to do that by radically redistributing wealth and democratizing government. Yes, the capitol stormers mostly weren't poor, but Trumpism is in large part a reaction of horror by small business owners at being squeezed by monopolies, and what popular support they have would evaporate if the government fixed things instead of being run as the public relations firm and personal military of all the large companies put together. 2 is to instead double down on physical repression (by funding police) and digital repression of dissenting viewpoints by abolishing any right to privacy. This seems to be the direction we're heading. It already happened in large part under the last few presidents but Signal is obviously in the crosshairs. I'm not mad at you. But I am frustrated that this obviously bad approach has support - of not dealing with root causes and material problems, but committing to suppression of beliefs on both the right and left that are obviously a reaction to those root causes.
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this Would you be taking this principled stance if this was an insurrection on the Iranian parliament?

mc32 6y ago

Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists. That's not how insurrections happen. It's a media blown overreaction because it helps their narrative. Look at how insurrections happen elsewhere. It's not done by selfie taking shamen. I mean WTF do they think? Only "their" revolutionaries can use the app, but others can't? It's like TOR. It can be used by dissidents but it can also be used by enemies of the state, yet the state believes on balance TOR does good.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists Just because it's a stupid insurrection doesn't mean it's not an insurrection.
- mc32 6y ago
  Ok, so then so was Malheur and the siege of the Seattle police station.
  - girvo 6y ago
    You don’t see a difference between a local police station and your literal federal Capitol building filled with Senators?
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Insurrection is a very vague word, any kind of violent protest against authorities can be called an insurrection. Funny the summer insurrections don't get to have that label.
  - Klonoar 6y ago
    Mmmm, yes, let's compare: - A group storming the capitol of the US after being fed a steady stream of lies regarding an election result, with the President himself pushing them to go. versus - A group protesting after yet-another-person-of-color was murdered, pushing for equality and a check on police brutality. Totally checks out. ;P
    - roenxi 6y ago
      You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. We have to compare fringe to fringe here. The extremest fringe of the summer protests was burning cop cars and and a courthouse in one instance. There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. That is insurrection. Not going to achieve anything though so everyone ignored it at the time. It wasn't any more of a problem than the Capitol riots.
      - Klonoar 6y ago
        >You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. I am not; I'm comparing the movements that led to each situation. You want to compare extremists, but the extremists are not the point - they'll always be there. The intent of the movements that caused these actions to happen are what matters, and it's fairly clear which side each falls on. Many of those instances of violence in the summer protests were reactionary and driven by police exercising unnecessary force, which has been documented in troves of video. Those who participated in the DC incident on the 6th were driven by a stream of misinformation, which has _also_ been well documented at this point. One wanted to believe in conspiracy theories and support a failure of a President, going so far as to listen to him to attempt to overthrow the government. The other one just wants equality. >There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. Yes, I live down the street from it. Having experienced it and lived around it, I would not classify it as anything remotely close to what was seen on January 6th in DC.
flunhat 6y ago
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did... You deserved it."
na85 6y ago
>Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists They had knives and zip ties and intended to take hostages. The fact that they are incompetent does not obviate their intent.
- ttt0 6y ago
  https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-handcuffs-police-prosecutors-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-han...
  - na85 6y ago
    Ok? So the capitol Police are equally incompetent? Not sure what point you are making.
    - notadev 6y ago
      The point is they're refuting your claim of intent.
      - na85 6y ago
        I don't see how
girvo 6y ago
They killed a police officer. Brutally assaulted others. Stole computers after breaking in.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'm very sympathetic to the view that emergency action was justified at the time in response to the urgent threat. But if we're talking about permanently refactoring the principles of free speech, I'm not sure that a single bad event is really enough evidence to make any decisions on.

spijdar 6y ago

Hasn't the internet and communication tools like signal been used for many years now to coordinate far worse attacks? Not to mention the various crimes it will inevitably be used for. Surely the people involved are aware it will inevitably be used for child pornography, sex trafficking, arms trade, and a litany of other crimes. It's just the nature of true encryption. You take both the good and the bad, we've known this for a while now.

tailspin2019 6y ago

I agree with you. All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet if it becomes the platform of choice for an unsavoury audience. Neither of which they have much control over. I would be more worried if people at Signal were not thinking about this, debating the issues and reflecting on the direction of their product. I thought the article (despite the over-egged headline) was interesting and not particularly hysterical. What I don’t see here is anyone actually suggesting they compromise E2E or any of the fundamentals of the product that we like in Signal. I feel strongly that Signal needs to stay moving in the direction it’s heading - which is to be a no-bullshit, secure, E2E encrypted, reliable and open platform with none of the data-hoarding of its rivals. I do not see any harm in Signal self-reflecting in particular in light of recent events. A “head in the sand” approach seems worse. I’m surprised by the cynical comments here so far. How about we take a charitable read of this?

ironman1478 6y ago
Yeah you summed up what I was trying to say more clearly.
mc32 6y ago
> "both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet..." The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it. As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives. It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

stickfigure 6y ago

> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this ...which was handily rebuffed. You're overstating it. The question is: How much liberty and privacy are you willing to give up to prevent that from happening again? For me, the answer is zero. The next batch of idiots are welcome to come and take their turn getting arrested next week. It is offensive and disturbing yes, but not a real threat to democracy. And there's no 8chan in prison, so this problem will sort itself out eventually.

etempleton 6y ago

Freedom of speech, like any ideal or philosophy eventually reaches practical limits. Everything is bad in absolutes. Tech, particularly social tech, began with noble yet naive absolutist ideals surrounding speech which has led to ham-fisted over corrections and contradictory take-downs.

0x262d 6y ago

It's clear that some people have done some bad things, and they used the internet (mostly facebook but whatever) to communicate. There are 2 approaches to fixing this. 1 is to undercut the roots of radicalism and polarization. I would say to do that by radically redistributing wealth and democratizing government. Yes, the capitol stormers mostly weren't poor, but Trumpism is in large part a reaction of horror by small business owners at being squeezed by monopolies, and what popular support they have would evaporate if the government fixed things instead of being run as the public relations firm and personal military of all the large companies put together. 2 is to instead double down on physical repression (by funding police) and digital repression of dissenting viewpoints by abolishing any right to privacy. This seems to be the direction we're heading. It already happened in large part under the last few presidents but Signal is obviously in the crosshairs. I'm not mad at you. But I am frustrated that this obviously bad approach has support - of not dealing with root causes and material problems, but committing to suppression of beliefs on both the right and left that are obviously a reaction to those root causes.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this Would you be taking this principled stance if this was an insurrection on the Iranian parliament?