Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by sizeofchar » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

farias0 wrote: post #208

sizeofchar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 milit…

> https://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/justica/suspeito-de-ameac.... > > https://jc.ne10.uol.com.br/politica/2020/06/5612890-alexandr....

I never denied that political figures from any party received threats, there are crazy people and plain criminals in every political side. What I said is that none of the censored are involved in those. The two links you enlisted doesn't even contain names.

About [0], they defend the historic military regime (what is a shame, truly), but they have clearly refuted any military coup, even silencing supporters that do [4].

About [3], it is a year and half old, and had no follow up, entirely speculative, by a widely know fake news outlet [theintercept.com].

[4] https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/politica/2020/04/20/intern...

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

#242

Post by nradov » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #184

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you recognize the possibility of good-faith disagreements on matters of fact, or do you expect that every reasonable person should agree in all cases about what's true and false? In the latter case I agree I don't see a productive discussion to be had here.

People argue about how much of a social safety net or welfare are good for society in different ways in the us. But people also argue about whether forcing masks is good or bad. The second one is extremely clear yet is still predominantly argued by one side.

Is it really extremely clear? And why should we consider "sides" when evaluating the scientific validity of a particular point?

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...

To be clear I am not arguing against wearing masks, but rather against a misrepresentation of the clarity of current scientific evidence.

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

#243

Post by Natsu » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

antropofagico wrote: post #234

nradov wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a US perspective that type of prior restraint on free speech prior to a criminal conviction just seems bizarre. Regardless of whether or not the suspects accused in this case are actually guilty, it gives the authorities too much power to suppress dissent.

Well, dissent is protected by the Brazilian Constitution. Death threats and threats to democracy itself are not. At some point you need to trust the set of institutions in place, otherwise you can’t apply any kind of regulation effectively.

> threats to democracy itself are not.

Isn't there a claim being made that the military has a constitutional right to take over as the junta once did?

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

#244

Post by gota » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

sizeofchar wrote: post #205

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 t…

> There is nothing in the law that allows this

There is, though. They will forward the case to the general prosecutor's office, as the law dictates.

> and the constitution plainly prohibits it.

It really doesn't. In fact it mentions explicitly that the Supreme Court in Brazil must oversee the early investigations (before handing them over to the general prosecutor, although that part is not explicit).

I'm not really in favor of it, but this is the reality of the system in place.

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

#245

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

hypersoar wrote: post #210

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encount…

You're misreading what I wrote. Here it is again:

> 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 contemptible third party speech.

The point is, people who are being triggered by third party speech should go get exposure therapy, from a professional, or "the likes of exposure therapy" -- some other treatment -- so that they are prepared for the world, instead of insisting on constraining the world to be only what they're prepared for -- which isn't even possible because the set of ideas different people find distressing are different.

Suppose I'm triggered by the imposition of censorship.

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

#246

Post by emersonrsantos » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #102

emersonrsantos wrote: post #28

You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists and citizens.

> You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists and citizens. Bolsonaro's supporters were caught calling for a military coup to allow Bolsonaro to become Brazil's dictator, as well as fabricating accusations and stories that targetted anyone who was inconvenient to Bolsonaro's political agenda. You should check where you base your slippery slope fallacy because any journalist who did the…

That's not true. Journalist Allan dos Santos reports the risk of a coup d'état against Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. The coup is allegedly being plotted by members of Brazilian Supreme Court. That's why he's silenced.

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

#247

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #180

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim.

> Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim. Are you really saying that the way to deal with depictions of child-abuse is by assigning copyright to the victim and then asking the victim to deal with it judicially? This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action comin…

> This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse.

Nonsense. Copyright is designed as a profit-generating system. All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it. There are many organizations that would love do to this work, and on top of that get paid for it out of the judgments against pedophiles. The victims wouldn't even have to be involved in the cases.

And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles.

> On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective.

Hollywood would presumably by very interested to hear of this possibility of holding the copyright to the work of an "actor" without their consent.

> Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example.

This is why fair use exists. Copyright doesn't always get that right, but now you're leveling a criticism of copyright implementation at a use case where it doesn't even apply. Pedophiles aren't distributing child pornography for the purposes of criticism.

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

#248

Post by mattigames » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #154

mattigames wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the solution is clear: If governments want to censor they should do it themselves not externalize costs to the foreign media company, meaning Facebook should give them access to an API/dashboard with all the posts created or viewed on Brazil and government employees should pick manually (or by algorithm) what to censor. After that any request of censoring anything coming from Brazil should be directed at the…

I wonder what could go wrong with that.

That at some point Facebook has to isolate Brazil on a separate website to stop it from censoring people that has nothing to do with Brazil and their government realizes that policing by themselves a global communication channel is not the best idea?

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

#249

Post by rumanator » Sun, Aug 02, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

hu3 wrote: post #224

rumanator wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ISPs comply on a national level. Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers if their service violates the law. Facebook's service is breaking the law, thus the court determined it should not. That's the point.

Actually, you're wrong. Facebook strives to comply on a national level only whenever possible. Here's an article about it: https://www.mic.com/articles/87515/if-you-live-in-one-of-the...

Somehow you missed the fact that Facebook complied with the ruling made by Brazil's court.

https://time.com/5874695/facebook-blocks-accounts-worldwide/

Seems to me that, yet again, a service provider complies with court rulings requesting that illegal content should be taken down.

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

#250

Post by chamucoman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 12:52 AM UTC

farias0 wrote: post #197

sizeofchar wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

The mental gymnastics are strong in this one...