3 ms·
What kills me is, they said "morphine" right in their own article, and here we are in these comments, showing that it's a word that must be communicated like a
by Brian_K_White 3y ago
What kills me is, they said "morphine" right in their own article, and here we are in these comments, showing that it's a word that must be communicated like any other word. What if HN also had the same filter for the same reasons? What if my browser did? Or their web host? The ostensible reasoning that the carriers give for filtering a message containing a word applies the same everywhere, if it were valid in the first place. It's literally not sane.
It also seems to me that interposing and filtering at all should lose the carriers their special "we're just the carrier" status and be directly criminally liable as a collaborator and beneficiary of every illegal thing they facilitate by failing to block it.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago> What kills me is, they said "morphine" right in their own article, and here we are in these comments, showing that it's a word that must be communicated like any other word. What if HN also had the same filter for the same reasons? What if my browser did? Or their web host? The ostensible reasoning that the carriers give for filtering a message containing a word applies the same everywhere It's a bit different. When I send a text message, I am reaching out to you personally, and privately, and triggering a little 'ding' on your phone. Anyone in the world can trigger that ding, at any time, once they have your number. It's actually a really significant power, which most of us give away practically for free in the course of daily life[1]. I can't do that with my Hacker News comment, or with my website. You probably won't even see this reply unless you check your 'threads'. All of this means there's a heightened need for filtering. (It does not mean the carrier's approach is sane.) --- 1: ...which I suppose is a great argument for the author's service, actually.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoI grant that is a difference. Whether it's enough is arguable but it's a property I didn't notice.
- JohnFen 3y ago> All of this means there's a heightened need for filtering. I disagree. It seems to me that given that SMS is a personal communication, there should be no filtering of that, just the ability for people to block certain senders. In a venue where you're talking to large numbers of strangers, filtering seems a bit more reasonable.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago> just the ability for people to block certain senders. But then they just switch to a different number.
- JohnFen 3y agoIf they're doing that, then they're stalkers and should be dealt with accordingly. In that case, I'd say the messages are the least worrisome part.
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoI'm not talking about texts from people I know. Do you not get SPAM text messages? I do. I block and report them, but I get new ones from new numbers. It's annoying. Some of these messages have been offers to buy illegal substances. So while I absolutely don't approve of the approach this carrier took, I do understand it.
- tyingq 3y agoWhich is doubly dumb since drug chat tends to use slang words for drugs that would be mostly problematic to block anyway...as many of them are commonly used for their original purpose.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoI'm not really in the drug scene, and so I don't have any direct experience, but from my understanding, if a buyer or narcotics has a conversation with his connection over open comms, the dialogue generally proceeds something like: "Hey, wondering if my... friend is in town?" "Oh, good, could he come over and bring, like, a large pizza, with pepperoni?" They will just arrange for code words and phrases ahead of time, and wire taps will not be able to prove illicit intent without corroborating info.
- mcmoor 3y agoIs there even any internet carrier still holding "we're just the carrier" status? It seems like everyone is forced to filter nowadays.