this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
882 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

86860 readers
3564 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sixty minutes. That’s how long it took for a private Snapchat message to travel from Kristen Volpe’s phone to the FBI to the deputies standing in her elementary school hallway. On January 29, 2025, the 22-year-old student teacher at John L. Hensey Elementary in Washington, Illinois, vented to her boyfriend and two roommates — three people total — after a student closed her laptop mid-class and wiped her lesson plan. She referenced shooting the student or the school. She meant it as a frustrated joke. Snapchat’s algorithm didn’t get the humor.

No student reported her. No parent. No coworker. The flag was entirely automated. Snapchat’s policy permits voluntary emergency disclosures to law enforcement — no warrant required — when the platform determines imminent harm exists. The algorithm makes that initial call. Think of it like your Ring doorbell deciding to call 911 on its own, except the doorbell is reading your text messages.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. People can have morbid humor in the appropriate time and place. If I'm not at an airport, and a joke comes into my head about a bomb at an airport? I'll happily share that out loud if I'm in an appropriate social setting. Will I do that at an airport? Of course not. If I'm teaching and have a problem student, I'll feel free to vent, even making a light-hearted joke about "wanting to strangle the little bastard." In the right place and time, jokes involving threats of violence are perfectly acceptable. Puritans disgust me. It's always done in bad faith.

Here's the core problem. These apps literally condition you to view your communications as private. They literally will label things ''private chats." No one expects to be able to like, organize illegal drug deals over Snapchat. But when people hear "private," their mind immediately treats the space like they would a private conversation in a closed setting.

We still have a lot of cultural reckoning to do with online discussions. A big problem we have right now is that most of our conversations have moved online, even between individuals who know each other IRL. And people always code-switch their conversations. You'll talk one way in public and another in private with close confidants. A generation ago, someone would make a crude joke in a bar, people would laugh or find it distasteful, and no one would give it a second thought. But online, it exist in a durable form, and that allows bad-faith actors to treat speech much more seriously than it was ever intended.

We need to develop better cultural understanding of what online speech means. For example, I take what I say under this account here much less seriously than I would if I was posting on a social media account under my real name. You should view a pseudonym as someone saying, "My name doesn't stand behind this. I don't really take what I write here too seriously. You shouldn't either. We're just folks chatting at an airport bar." But publishing under your own name? That should be viewed like standing on a street corner holding a sign, or writing a letter to the editor under your real name. You're boldly standing up for your words, and you'll chose them more carefully accordingly.

People will find some political candidate's old reddit comments, comments they never put much thought into, and use those to crucify a candidate, citing their half-considered musings as proof of their irredeemable wickedness. We honestly have a lot of growing up to do for how we treat communication. People are very childish about the online communications of others, treating all forms as if they are the most serious forms of expressed beliefs. There's a time and place for rudeness and crude humor, and we shouldn't crucify people for being ordinary human beings. That's how you end up with psychopath politicians who design their entire social life around being as uncontroversial as possible. Honestly, if someone doesn't appreciate morbid humor? I feel there's something psychologically wrong with them.

The problem in this case is that Snapchat encourages people to treat their private chats like they would a private conversation between two people in their own home. Yes, their terms of service state they'll monitor the chat. But they still use dark patterns to encourage you to view the conversation as private and intimate. They do this to make you use the platform more.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with what this person said. Morbid humor is fine. You would be hard pressed to find a teacher that hasn't joked about doing something completely inappropriate to a particularly frustrating student. Not always violence. But I've certainly vented about wanting to grab a phone out of a student's hand and smash it with a hammer. Would I actually do that? No. Would I threaten a student with doing that? No. But I'm also repulsed by Puritanical attitudes that pretend this isn't just a normal way healthy human beings communicate.

Those jokes just happen among close confidants, behind closed doors, and among people who know you're not being serious. This is just part of being human, and I'm tired of self-righteous haughty people claiming they wouldn't also be crucified if everything they had ever said was also part of the public record.

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world -4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Never, ever, ever post dumb stuff like that in public. Don't shout fire in a movie theater. Don't shout bomb in an airport. Don't talk about killing customers in the work groupchat. Unless you own the hardware or are using end-to-end encryption, it's public. No excuse. User error.

I guarantee you if this teacher killed the student people would be carrying pitchforks over nothing being done about the messages.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Bullshit. This wasn't a public space.

Imagine I rent you a hotel room. You expect it to be private. Except hidden in the fine print of the check-in paperwork it states that there are microphones in the hotel room and anything you say there can be reported to the authorities.

That is the comparable situation. Quit equating this to public speech.

These companies encourage us to treat these tools as private. They literally fucking them PRIVATE CHATS. Because that will encourage us to use their platforms more.

If this is going to be the standard, we should make it illegal for companies like this to offer private chats as a feature. If the speech is going to be policed this much, we should make it so everything has to be published, in public, for anyone to see, under your real name.

The problem is the tool is sold as as private, but then policed like you're standing outside a school with a bullhorn threatening to shoot the place up.

I guarantee you if this teacher killed the student people would be carrying pitchforks over nothing being done about the messages.

And they would be fools.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago

Microphones in the hotel? No need, you carry them in your pocket almost 24/24. There are some in your car. Even if you don't have a smartphone, a nice combo of PervGlasses and surrounding phones will be sufficient to get what you're venting about, so that law enforcement can protect the society from your darkest jokes…

And by the time this is implemented, piece by piece, the very same people claiming it's acceptable/a good thing will totally agree with the processing: you should mind what you say around people, or alone.

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world -4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

You have an expectation of privacy in a hotel room. Privacy over social media is akin to passing a note in a classroom and getting upset the teacher snatches it and reads it. Your "private" messages on Discord are not private.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Read more carefully. I'm obviously not talking about how these online spaces are legally defined. I'm talking about how the companies instruct their users to use them. I don't blame people for acting in a way that they're told they can act.

"The private chat has no expectation of privacy!"

Orwellian bullshit.

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Your issue is one of branding, which is fair. Though, it is not a social media company's responsibility to educate users on the distinction between "private" from other users and "encrypted" from government snooping.

That's the fundamental problem I have with this. I don't believe in trapping people through gotcha bear traps. If you're going to be scanning every message for violations of rules, you shouldn't be advertising that service as private. In fact, they shouldn't even have DMs in that case.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 20 hours ago

And e-mail, and FB Messenger and the rest, but people don't get that. People responding to posts in public forums think they are just talking with one other person because "I don't see anybody else here" - meanwhile, the post will stay up open and searchable for decades.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 20 hours ago

What people "don't get" is that their "private" snapchat messages are more or less equivalent to shouting in a quiet theater.