Live data from Hacker News

Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

theverge.com

211–220 of 855 posts

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#211

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?

Is it acceptable for foreign owned entities to not follow the rules of a country? I think, probably not - the choice is to follow the regulations or to not be there, like Meta in China.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. As in Brazil constitution? They don't have free speech, but freedom of expression. Read article 5 of the Brazilian constitution.

What’s the difference between Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?

There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#214
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Bluesky intend to be responsive to the kind of court orders that X rejected?

Speaking entirely personally as I don't handle those questions at bsky. I couldn't even begin to comment without seeing knowing what the court orders were and what the cases are. Every social company operating internationally runs into this issue, and it's daunting to say the least. So, again, this is not something I decide. What I can say is that the protocol is a neutral global layer for data, which can then enable…

X has just started sharing all of them in response.

https://x.com/alexandrefiles/status/1829979981130416479?s=46...

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#215

It saddens me the Brasil banned X because of racism, anti-semitism and hate-speech. But X is still not banned in the west. At some point we have to come to this realization in the west that absolutism is never the answer. Free speech is good upto certain extent, the way it was at Twitter before the rich and powerful took over. Moreover, it is content moderation and it doesn't have anything to do with free speech.

We would have to ban the iPhone then.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.

[flagged]

They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#219
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bluesky team worked previously on IPFS and Dat/Hypercore and Secure Scuttlebutt. Whyrusleeping - one of the core authors of IPFS - has been an active technical advisor from the start. ATProto is basically those p2p & content addressed techs moved into the server stack. None of us are bullish on client side p2p for large scale publishing or social applications, and we spent 10 years each doing that.

P2P is hard, but that does not mean undesirable.

Feel free to pick up where we left off, but just know that you're in for a lot of pain on key sync, device pairing, unreliable data availability, poor connection establishment latency, high end-user device resource usage, and very small data indexes which make it nearly impossible to produce even moderately-sized social networks.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#220
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The lawsuit from his X platform against the non-profit advertising initiative GARM has led to its dissolution. A major ad industry group is shutting down, days after Elon Musk-owned X filed a lawsuit that claimed the group illegally conspired to boycott advertising on his platform." -- Google I.e. Musk did not sue the advertisers.

Yes he did: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.39... Parties include the following. The last 5 are advertisers. - WORLD FEDERATION OF ADVERTISERS; - UNILEVER PLC - UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. - MARS, INCORPORATED - CVS HEALTH CORPORATION - ØRSTED A/S docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world...

Yes, he sued not only the cartel organization, but its members. That seems only reasonable, as he sued them for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Do you think the Sherman Act is an unreasonable limitation on the free market?

Post reply on HN