271–280 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot to say about the Brazilian Supreme Court abuses of power. And to be complete on the context, I expect it to have teeth.
Is it even remotely modeled after the US system of checks and balances? How does the court have what also seems like legislative power?
This has been a bad week for Democracy/freedom of speech
Nah, the Brazilian government will lose this round. X is not going to cave, and the government doesn’t have the technological capacity to quickly spin up their own Great Firewall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it normal that a judge can impose such blanket fines on users?
This is Brazil. That guy is a judge-god-king. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. Saddest part is even on HN you will find brazilians supporting everything he does.
Its just that the executive and legislative are now so weakened due to corruption scandals (and open investigations) that no one seemingly dares to move against 1 wild judge.
I wonder how this ends though. 1 judge seemingly has more power now than a set of democratically elected senators
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say?" This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a doubl…
I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.
There are other ways besides the USDA, DoE, or FBI to get good food, health, education, and security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why side loading feature is important. Government shouldn't decide what should I do as per their whims.
That won't stop you from being fined $9k USD!
( short of opening your phone and browsing instslled apps )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case was X not explicitly asked to remove the illegal content? They could have simply complied with the local law and avoided this outcome. With their hardcore engineers I’m sure they could have come up with a region-locked solution.
They might have been able to do so but they claim not to want to cooperate with what they consider to be a violation of both Brasilian law as well as their own ethical rules. Make of that what you will but it is a more defensible stance than bending to the will of whatever tyrant pops up even if it does not improve the bottom line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way? Musk decides what's OK and not OK on twitter. Twitter isn't a platform to promote democracy, it promotes what Musk wants. Twitter has turned into hot garbage. For years my feed was pretty clean as it's almost exclusively tech. Gave it up recently as it was clogged with right-wing conspiracy, odd videos and random made up AI young women randomly following me occasionally.
If you don’t like Musk’s platform, feel free not to use it. Nobody is forcing you to. But if you try to lock me in a cell when I decide to use it, you are attacking my freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try saying "cisgender" on Twitter, of course the guy is moderating speech he personally doesn't like. It's not difficult to observe.
So Elon Musk getting community-noted is him moderating speech he doesn't like?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All Elon needs to do is have a legal representative in Brazil for his commercial venture. He chose this.
Because the Supreme Court arbitrarily threatened the legal representatives, and Elon didn't comply. There is no legal process whatsoever, nor the regular mediums have been used. It's all arbitrary without the due process. Even a legalist would need to concede that the law hasn't been followed in the first place.
That's simply false. The proper legal processes are being followed. It's just a narrative pushed by those who refuse to accept that their actions are/were illegal and have consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what content was requested to be removed. If the opposition was spreading lies about elections being stolen, that seems like reasonable content to moderate. Not all moderation is bad, and different places have different tolerances for it. I keep seeing people say "silencing the opposition" but not actually providing what that means in practice. Could be authoritarian, could be not. Given musk's history a…
> that seems like reasonable content to moderate Why should the government be the one to make that decision? If anyone has a conflict of interest, it's them, no?