161–170 of 855 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is called Popper's Tolerance Paradox, and you are quite right. it's truly amazing how many people dont really get that having only 99% free speech is just fine
99% of speech is bland and unobjectionable. It’s the 1% that needs protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of…
Thank you for the clarifying information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what levers does that give governments seeking to get compliance out of an internet service - if multiple apps are hosting anti-party propaganda the government has to block the domains of each app ? Or, perhaps the domains of the content itself is blocked so apps continue to work but fail to load content within certain borders ?
apps don't host data, PDS (personal data servers) do apps implement views on that data, and may or may not follow the rules, of gov't or users. For example, even though you can block a user, detach a quote post, or hide comments, apps have to implement this behavior, and nothing stops a person from finding that relation. ATProto is federated, not centralized, and not something gov'ts and regulations have thought thor…
Not trying to be combative but I find this mode of thinking is likely to backfire, governments don't have to think they can just act - has bsky thought seriously about what their response will be to the same laws that X is suffering from?
Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol. So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part. Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge. The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian…
Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of…
Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.
Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are talking about the same Elon who tweeted the picture of the judge behind bars in an masterful attempt to resolve the issue, right?
Is that relevant to the illegality of Moraes' secret censorship campaign?
I remain surprised at how casually people will step over the free speech dead body so they can hate on people the media at large has maligned. Regardless of what you think of Musk, where's your outrage over this blatant authoritarianism?
What would be much more productive to discuss is if such law that gives accountability to social media is valid and weather the implementation is of good enough quality to catch abuses without impacting freedom of speech. I suspect it is, since we have similar laws mandating accountability to traditional media for 100s of years by now. Afaik any democratic country has such laws, in fact, the usa used to have strong laws around traditional media accountability until a few decades ago when they were weakened.
They will ban Bluesky too if it gets too popular .
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
All that without the possibility of your defense because he has been acting as the judge and the jury.
So much for free speech.