695
Californians Say X Blocked Them From Viewing Amber Alert About Missing 14-Year-Old (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

this is really just a problem with government agencies/departments using social media websites as primary avenues of delivering information.

I guarantee that this was not a "primary avenue" for delivering this information.

Edit: I was wrong. Finally got the confirmation that should have been included in the article from the beginning:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The alert popped up on the phone with the link, which people could not see.

    But instead of conveying vital information that could help locate the victim within the notification itself, the law enforcement agency linked to a post from its official X account

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Ah. I see. The alerts were conveyed directly to phones via primary avenues: Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and Emergency Alert System (EAS). Those alerts included a link to their Xhitter account.

    Every Amber alert I've seen has included location, name of the adult, license plate, vehicle description, a description of the child, etc. Most include come kind of link (secondary avenue) that (in my experience) just shows the content from the alert, and doesn't actually provide any further detail.

    Have we confirmed that this alert included only the link to Xhitter, without the other data? If that is actually the case, it's not just the CHP's failure, but also the managers of the WEA and EAS systems: They aren't supposed to activate those systems without the actual message.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Jesus the article and everyone is telling you what happened and you just won't accept it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    ACKSUALLY, I did accept it, just as soon as someone posted a screenshot of the alert in question. Which I promptly posted in several other comments.

    Given the abhorrent state of modern journalism, and the lack of a simple screenshot that would have conclusively demonstrated the problem, "skepticism" was justified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    ACKSUALLY you didn't. The news writers saw it and told you, I saw it and told you, other people saw it and told you, everyone saw it and told you. You would not accept it. You jumped through every hoop you could and blamed everyone else to not accept it. Ciao.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    A bunch of people, you included, told me they read the article, and then cited that article as their source. I asked for a screenshot of the alert, and explained how to get it. Eventually, someone provided the screenshot I requested, and demonstrated that this particular alert differs from every other alert I have ever seen:

    https://lemmy.world/comment/14302173

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Jesus wouldn't accept it from the entire conversation we had, someone else even chiming in. Next time look it up yourself if you don't believe anything instead of shoving refusal in everyone's face until someone finally had enough. Why do I bother.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Have we confirmed that this alert included only the link to Xhitter, without the other data?

    I guess you're looking for another source, but as far as this one goes it states in the first paragraph that this was exactly the problem:

    Earlier this week, the California Highway Patrol sent an Amber Alert push notification to phones in the Los Angeles area about a 14-year-old girl that authorities believed had been abducted. But instead of conveying vital information that could help locate the victim within the notification itself, the law enforcement agency linked to a post from its official X account, a practice it adopted six years ago. But this time, many people reported they could not view the alert because they hit a screen that prevents users from seeing any content on X until they sign into their account.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago

    On an android phone, under Settings, you can view past emergency alerts, including AMBER alerts. I'd like to see a screenshot of this particular alert.

    If that alert does not include the actual information, I'll be happy to pick up my pitchfork. Hell, I'll even start boiling some tar, but I don't have a good supplier for feathers...

    Until then, what the author is describing does not correspond to my own experiences receiving AMBER alerts, and seems to contradict WEA and EAS policies. I'm open to being proven wrong, I'm just skeptical.

    If CHP is only sending Xhitter links, there are problems with CHP, EAS, and WEA, as none of them are supposed to be using the systems that way.

    If, instead, they are providing the data and the Xhitter link, the problem is with user expectations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent