Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 258 posts

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#201

Post by youareostriches »

ashishb wrote: post #31
ve55 wrote: post #9

Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?

We need to think federation here. Some websites have more racist content. Some have more porn. We can choose to visit a website which sorry suits our sensibilities. That's not the case with a social network. They have to apply one set of policies to all. The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.

>The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.

Communication is a public utility. They shouldn’t need to be operated for profit.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#202

Post by hu3 »

rumanator wrote: post #194
hu3 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I follow the logic. The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.

> The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. There is no such thing as "only for now". Either it violates the law, or it doesn't. The court deemed that it breaks the law, thus the law should not continue to be broken. Hence the ruling. > The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide. The court determined that Facebook hosts content that violates the law. Therefore Facebook should remove the…

The #Brazilian# court deemed that it breaks the law.

As far as I know no other court addressed the matter so far.

Facebook argues that content should only be taken down where it breaks the law, which is reasonable.

Otherwise you'll see, for example, Facebook and Twitter silencing accounts of Turkish dictator Erdogan's opposition worldwide because that specific country deemed their speech to be illegal.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#203

Post by gavribirnbaum »

gavribirnbaum wrote: post #133
castevictim wrote: post #90

I am glad that Brazil's court still remains independent. Looks like Bolsonaro, should borrow couple of tips from his friend Narendra Modi. Modi, dismantled the institutions in India systematically to guarantee his long lasting power. e.g. The only official from the election commission who didn't give a clean-chit to Modi for his election campaign violations during last election was greeted with Income Tax raids on hi…

Last time I visited Brazil some 5 years ago, the courts would ban Whatsapp every couple months. They were in bed with telecom companies that hated that Whatsapp made many of their services free.

I stand corrected then. Thanks for clarifying. I remember lots of talk about that back then and I was not aware of the details.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#204

Post by gavribirnbaum »

lkrubner wrote: post #178
gavribirnbaum wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on, Bolsonaro is not a dictator. Federalism even recently screwed him over. He didn't act on COVID but individual states imposed their own measures and thankfully countered his opinion.

That's like saying Mussolini was not a dictator in 1922, because there were still so many factions competing against him in Italian politics. Possibly true, but it's also clear what direction he was heading. By 1925 he had largely consolidated his power.

Well I'm also super concerned that he has expressed dictatorial aspirations. But as of right now the constitution holds.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#205

Post by sizeofchar »

antropofagico wrote: post #198

There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision. This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s expl…

> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres.

Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and the constitution plainly prohibits it. They are abusing their power and are censoring activists, journalists and politicians, plain and simple.

> (which the accused parties have access to)

Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#206

Post by glofish »

aflag wrote: post #186
gavribirnbaum wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazilian here. Unfortunately I wouldn't call them independent. They simply represent the other side. Brazil is not as united behind Bolsonaro as the media makes out to be.

They are free to not take the government side in all matters. So, how are they not independent?

Independence means something else. It means not beholden to certain interests.

Simply being in the pocket of the other party (opposition) does not make them independent.

(Disclaimer: I don't know if this is the case, simply commenting on the topic of independence)

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#207

Post by andrewflnr »

chmod775 wrote: post #123
riffraff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> beyond the obscene I mean, that's pretty arbitrary too, e.g. FB censors female breasts, which is not considered obscene in many places. It's a difficult line to walk.

Where I live even full nudity would not be considered obscene at all, unless something sexual was going on. However it is becoming more and more the case. With American platforms and media, their learned attitude of being overly prude also made their way here. Though I'm not sure whether "prude" is the right word to describe the crippling self-consciousness many experience when faced with nude humanity. I suspect it…

As an American, I don't think it's "crippling self-consciousness", we're just trained to think of nudity as sexually provocative in itself.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#208

Post by farias0 »

sizeofchar wrote: post #200
farias0 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dirceu's quote was retracted and said to be unfortunate. Also he was talking about a scenario where Bolsonaro executed a military coup. Freixo meant that about Bolsonarismo, not the right. Which is a sentiment I agree. Your claim about Alexandre de Moraes is conspiracy theory, there's no serious reason to believe he's involved on Zavascki's death. Yeah, Bolsonaro was stabbed by a nutjob, and STF's ministers and famil…

> Yeah, Bolsonaro was stabbed by a nutjob, and STF's ministers and family constantly receive threats from people online. Both affirmations are true, although that's not the reason for the censoring in question. None of the censored made threats to any ministers, other than legal political activism. I would be surprised if you could link to just one occurrence of threat to ministers. What is unfaithful is to say other…

https://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/justica/suspeito-de-ameac...

https://jc.ne10.uol.com.br/politica/2020/06/5612890-alexandr...

Although I made clear that these threats are not the reason of the censorship in question.

And "the right" actually executed plans to keep themselves permanently in power with all the violence that entails, but it's not fair to associate everyone that subscribes to "the right" with the military coup.

And this is an especially dishonest claim to be made in times where the most important and beloved right-wing figure in Brazilian politics openly defends this military regime [0], violence against the opposition [1], domestic violence (spanking children) [2], police violence, and is even associated with violent militia [3]. Had you said that during PT vs. PSDB times it would be damaging, unfruitful and a gross generalization, but at least it would have some basis on the real public discourse.

[0] https://veja.abril.com.br/politica/doze-vezes-em-que-bolsona...

[1] https://exame.com/brasil/vamos-fuzilar-a-petralhada-diz-bols...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJNy08VoLZs

[3] https://theintercept.com/2019/01/22/bolsonaros-milicias/

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#209

Post by pyuser583 »

sizeofchar wrote: post #189
Barrin92 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as in this case the posts in question include direct physical threats like threatening the children of judges with murder and rape. Using social media to threaten physical violence against Bolsonaro's opponents has been a theme all throughout his time in power.

Absolutely none of the censored did threat with physical aggressions. It is quite the opposite. Bolsonaro was stabbed, and almost died, by a leftist activist, with former link to a far left party, PSOL. Dirceu, the strategist head of PT, the main opposition to Bolsonaro, gave an interview recently saying that “it is time to retake position of power, which is not the same as winning the elections”. Marcelo Freixo, cur…

This is a problem with censorship. If the posts weren’t censored, we could look at them and see what they said.

Instead we have to speculate.

Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters

#210

Post by hypersoar »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121
heavyset_go wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your theory is directly contrary to various clinical treatments for anxiety (e.g. exposure therapy) which are altogether more healthy and sustainable Reading slurs online isn't exposure therapy. Exposure therapy consists of controlled situations and counseling led by licensed therapists. No therapist would suggest that their clients should expose themselves to abusive and toxic environments as "exposure therapy". P…

The purpose of exposure therapy is to desensitize the patient to the stimulus, rather than wishing against all evidence that the stimulus would never be encountered, so that when they do encounter it in the world, it doesn't trigger them. The argument isn't that hate speech is exposure therapy, it's that the likes of exposure therapy are a better solution than censorship to prevent people from being harmed by contemp…

I've had exposure therapy and seen it at work with others. This talking point really pisses me off. The "likes of exposure therapy" are not exposure therapy. Exposing yourself to something traumatic or distressing (and I mean "distressing" in a mental health sense) is a very tricky thing. Going overboard can have serious consequences. This is why it's done very deliberately, or even with supervision. Randomly encountering triggering content while going about your day is what it's supposed to prepare you for, but it's sure as hell not how it's done.

Please stop spreading mental health disinformation.

Post reply on HN