Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[deleted]
Brazilian court orders suspension of X
311–320 of 388 posts
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#312Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the pro-authoritarian stance.
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…
> If the opposition was spreading lies about elections being stolen, that seems like reasonable content to moderate.
Absolutely not. That might be the absolute world's last content that should be touched.
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
I mean, Germany bans nazi imagery in media. Many countries ban false advertising. A number consider it not ok to discriminate against people based on their characteristics. Fringe health statements are often disallowed. TikTok just got hit with a speech case about a girl hanging herself to death because of a video. Government moderates speech all the time, and yes, there's obviously grey areas and opportunities for a…
False advertising (and libel/slander) are about not saying probably false things in contexts where truth is required.
They're a bit different to people being allowed to have an opinion and say it without a tech giant (then) or judge (now) stopping them.
As for banning images - sure. Tricky. Don't particularly like nazi symbols, but I personally wouldn't ban them. They aren't magically evil symbols that trigger awful behaviour.
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#315Earlier 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…
> If the opposition was spreading lies about elections being stolen, that seems like reasonable content to moderate. Absolutely not. That might be the absolute world's last content that should be touched.
Come off the hyperbole. You don't believe that. I guarantee you you can think of content that's something we should moderate less.
What about opposition candidates spreading truthful information. You'd really moderate the truth away before you'd moderate blatant misinformation?
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ridiculous. You think Elon Musk goes around reading people's tweets and deciding what he wants or not? Or trained an AI model to only allow content that suits him? The guy literally gets community-noted every once in a while. It's free speech.
What's the relationship between twitter and free speech? I genuinely don't see that argument.
Not allowing secret manipulation by the deep state, corrupt states, or removal of speech that doesn't cater to extremist sensitivities.
It's the reason for the entire news post we're all commenting on.
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
being a democracy does not guarantee that everything you do is correct
Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such. It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not. This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM. This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition…
Harriet Tubman was a criminal too.
Sometimes being a criminal by defying an unjust law is the best thing you can do.
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appears to be at odds with what's reported in the linked article. The Guardian is a reputable, independent source. X is neither of those.
Where/How does The Guardian article conflict with X's statement?
It lays out the reasons for the dispute in several paragraphs, there is no mention of what was claimed, but reasonable representation of both sides position:
"The Brazilian supreme court has ordered that X be suspended in the country after the social media platform failed to meet a deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country."
"The dispute began in April, when Moraes ordered the suspension of dozens of accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation – a request Musk denounced as censorship." X, formerly known as Twitter, has been without a legal representative in Brazil since 17 August, when Musk announced that his company was shutting down its operations in the country “effective immediately” due to what it called “censorship orders” from Moraes. The service has remained available to users in the country.""
"Moraes’ April order to X to block some accounts stemmed from an investigation into “digital militias” who backed former president Jair Bolsonaro’s attempts to stay in power after his 2022 election defeat. After Musk refused to comply, the judge included him in his investigation."
"On Wednesday, Moraes gave the company 24 hours to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil – a requirement for foreign companies operating in the country – “under penalty of immediate suspension of the social network’s activities”."
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has been talking about arresting Musk himself, rather employees or representatives of Twitter who are required to be present in Brazil just for this specific reason (i.e. so that they could be arrested and used as bargaining chips to force the foreign company to do whatever the government/("independent") judiciary wants. Also I really don't understand your overall point.
My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. This is about a guy who faces no personal consequences whatsoever choosing to ignore court orders and a government penalizing his business for that choice. There is some speculation that maybe the judge is acting illegally but I haven’t seen anyone familiar with Brazilian constitutional law say that.…
> My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong.
I wouldn't necessarily use words like 'good' and 'evil' here but the fact that a judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system. Genuinely curious how can someone defend something like that?
> “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to.
I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point.
even if it complies with Brazilian laws why would that matter at all? North Korea and Russia and all similar countries also have "laws"...
> If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular
So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? The implication being that no platform/social network can be trustworthy and ethical unless it cooperates with (semi)authoritarian governments?
Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have regional blocking, they have been blocking political tweets and accounts in Turkey upon the request of the Turkish government since years now.
What is unclear to me from reading articles is whether they are demanding region blocking (which may not be reasonable but at least makes sense) or a global deletion of that content...
Right, many places require content be removed globally which I'm sure makes sense from their perspective.