Bell Canada was censoring all text messages if the text contained a substack link in it. Texts were intercepted going out independent of the provider used by the intended recipients. And texts to Bell customers were intercepted independent of what provider the sender used. Bell gave me no hint whatsoever that these texts were being intercepted. I found this out in Jan when I sent my brother a text with a link to a substack article that I had written. After multiple calls to Bell support, and after slowing working up the hierarchy of technicians, it was eventually confirmed that my texts were indeed being rejected. I was told the Bell algorithm was rejecting the links because it was determined to be spam. When i asked for the policy of Bell on spam, I was told they had none. When I provided the technician with the link to the substack article, they became convinced it was not spam. From here on the technicians were on my side, yet none could figure out how to stop Bell from intercepting texts with substack links. Finally, after about 10 weeks and as many phone calls, the problem vanished.
Also the coordinated block/unblock is a different mechanism. So it suppresses Tweet activity, but it doesn't prohibit interactions with the Tweet (which is a top-down admin feature, not an algorithm).
Ironically Twitter's own fact-checkers admit they are in-fact restricting Substack links, contrary to Elon's insistence that they aren't. The litany of excuses hold no water!
It really doesn't, because blocking people from replying to, liking and retweeting has absolutely nothing to do with webscraping, which is a passive activity.
It'd be like if I banned you from commenting on this Substack.
Doesn't stop you copying the entire article.
Elon's excuses are pretty weak. If it was webscraping, he could have just blocked IP addresses without affecting likes, replies or retweets.
I'm writing this even as I'm hearing it on NoAgenda. This is as fast as information gets. I usually trust Adam Curry about those kind of issues.
Twitter's reason for filtering out Substack might be because someone on Twitter security team found that the fact that Substack was launching their new Notes app could mean a potential hacking threat to Twitter's code.
I see no reason why blocking links to a website would address a vaguely worded "hacking threat". Any more than you not visiting the pirate bay would somehow stop piracy.
To me it seems like Team Elon are scraping the barrel looking for excuses for getting caught red handed censoring a pro-free speech platform throwing whatever people will buy into.
I look forward to evidence being presented for these seemingly defamatory claims.
Ok, *that* makes sense. I'm not exactly sure where the info came from originally, I was actually feeding the dogs while listening :-), it might even not come from Twitter.
Now listening to the rest of the show, about Pentagon supposedly leaked documents about American engagement in Ukraine and then about Taiwan...
I don't buy much about the "leaked" documents, especially without seeing them.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia think the documents are real.
I think they're likely more akin to D-Day invasion forgeries designed to try to throw off the Russians from a counter-offfensive, but executed in a hamfisted and not-subtle way.
Bell Canada was censoring all text messages if the text contained a substack link in it. Texts were intercepted going out independent of the provider used by the intended recipients. And texts to Bell customers were intercepted independent of what provider the sender used. Bell gave me no hint whatsoever that these texts were being intercepted. I found this out in Jan when I sent my brother a text with a link to a substack article that I had written. After multiple calls to Bell support, and after slowing working up the hierarchy of technicians, it was eventually confirmed that my texts were indeed being rejected. I was told the Bell algorithm was rejecting the links because it was determined to be spam. When i asked for the policy of Bell on spam, I was told they had none. When I provided the technician with the link to the substack article, they became convinced it was not spam. From here on the technicians were on my side, yet none could figure out how to stop Bell from intercepting texts with substack links. Finally, after about 10 weeks and as many phone calls, the problem vanished.
The guy got vaxxed two times, that is all you need to know about his character.
I don't have any proposal but thank you for exposing Musk and Twitter for what they are.
Twitter’s CVE explains all those shadow bans
https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/07/twitter_code_cve_substack/
Also the coordinated block/unblock is a different mechanism. So it suppresses Tweet activity, but it doesn't prohibit interactions with the Tweet (which is a top-down admin feature, not an algorithm).
Ironically Twitter's own fact-checkers admit they are in-fact restricting Substack links, contrary to Elon's insistence that they aren't. The litany of excuses hold no water!
It really doesn't, because blocking people from replying to, liking and retweeting has absolutely nothing to do with webscraping, which is a passive activity.
It'd be like if I banned you from commenting on this Substack.
Doesn't stop you copying the entire article.
Elon's excuses are pretty weak. If it was webscraping, he could have just blocked IP addresses without affecting likes, replies or retweets.
I'm writing this even as I'm hearing it on NoAgenda. This is as fast as information gets. I usually trust Adam Curry about those kind of issues.
Twitter's reason for filtering out Substack might be because someone on Twitter security team found that the fact that Substack was launching their new Notes app could mean a potential hacking threat to Twitter's code.
Makes sense?
I see no reason why blocking links to a website would address a vaguely worded "hacking threat". Any more than you not visiting the pirate bay would somehow stop piracy.
To me it seems like Team Elon are scraping the barrel looking for excuses for getting caught red handed censoring a pro-free speech platform throwing whatever people will buy into.
I look forward to evidence being presented for these seemingly defamatory claims.
Ok, *that* makes sense. I'm not exactly sure where the info came from originally, I was actually feeding the dogs while listening :-), it might even not come from Twitter.
Now listening to the rest of the show, about Pentagon supposedly leaked documents about American engagement in Ukraine and then about Taiwan...
Red herrings coming up in shoals?
I don't buy much about the "leaked" documents, especially without seeing them.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia think the documents are real.
I think they're likely more akin to D-Day invasion forgeries designed to try to throw off the Russians from a counter-offfensive, but executed in a hamfisted and not-subtle way.
Just speculation on my part though.
Thanks. I'm also wary of "leaks", as I am of miraculously found incriminating documents.