What good is a warrant canary if it's also used for whimsy or commercial speech? If they don't take it seriously enough for people know what it means then their system isn't worth using to start with.

A Twitter feed is not a warrant canary.

Edit: the exact link to the official warrant canary is specified in the top post, please don't answer if you haven't recognized that much:

https://riseup.net/pl/about-us/canary

The "If they're relying on double entendres then it might as well be" as a response to "A Twitter feed is not a warrant canary" really has no sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Also worth reading:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...

Think about it a while longer.

If they're relying on double entendres then it might as well be.

OK, good point.

This could just be drama.

Maybe it's worth checking their feed before writing?

That's the problem with canaries, though. By definition, they exist for situations where the canary-owner can't offer positive evidence for compromised security.

I don't particularly think Riseup is in that position, but unless someone actively says "don't worry about our lack of a canary, we took it down for $REASONS and all is well", negative evidence is all you can react to.

It could have been an attempt at plausible deniability.

Have you happened to see their other messages from the same day?

"Dear friends, please remember that internet is not always the answer..."

"by the way, that wasn't a trump related tweet..."

"listen to the hummingbird, whose wings you cannot see, listen to the hummingbird, don't listen to me. #LeonardCohen"

It all "has nothing to do with" canaries.

or it means "the canary is dead for a reason; don't trust us"