Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 855 posts

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

#231

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #188
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #152

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]

I'm not sure what you intend for me to infer from this context-free link. It doesn't seem to include any examples of the government ordering Twitter to ban certain accounts, although it does have a few of the suggestions regarding content I mentioned.

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

#232

Post by wmf »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #154
supafastcoder wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe the potential valuation and financial performance was not the primary motivation for Musk to buy Twitter, it’s simply a toy for a man worth $200+ billion.

I agree, but if he valued the soft power, wouldn't you expect to him to take the survival of the platform more seriously? Or maybe it's all for the lulz and I am just a dumb peasant. Certainly, to hell with the valuation if you're going to run it as your own personal forum, but if you scare all the users and revenue away, you are left with a very expensive CRUD system you alone are posting into (and paying billions o…

Maybe Twitter will become more popular and influential now that it's banned. It could be the place to find out what the government doesn't want you to know.

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

#233

Post by throwaway48476 »

churchill wrote: post #229
throwaway48476 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that I have a colour revolution theory to sell you.

A crazed 17yo son of African immigrants murdered 3 kids. Then, the far-right seized on it to make assumptions about the attacker, speculate he was a Muslim, and even provide a fake name. In fact, some of these Twitter accounts (Tristan Tate, etc.) shared the picture of a young Black preacher as the attacker. I saw it and I know when the post disappeared from EndWokeness' and Tristan Tate's page while I was reading th…

[flagged]

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

#234

Post by chrisweekly »

Kye wrote: post #120
pfraze wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Context: atmosphere is like "Fediverse" but for the AT protocol and also way more schway

I had to check, and urbandictionary confirms, "schway" is

> "A word to use when something is astonishingly cool, fashionable, or popular."

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

#235

Post by 3x35r22m4u »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #203
throwadobe wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech 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.

[flagged]

Please stop. The moment you mentioned started mixing the Executive with the Judiciary ("has support of sitting president") it became clear you are not providing pure facts, but an opinion.

The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions; X didn't comply; fines were issued; fines were never paid by X; the justice started using all available legal tools to fulfill the previous mandates (content removal and/or pecuniary penalties).

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

#236

Post by churchill »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #233
churchill wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A crazed 17yo son of African immigrants murdered 3 kids. Then, the far-right seized on it to make assumptions about the attacker, speculate he was a Muslim, and even provide a fake name. In fact, some of these Twitter accounts (Tristan Tate, etc.) shared the picture of a young Black preacher as the attacker. I saw it and I know when the post disappeared from EndWokeness' and Tristan Tate's page while I was reading th…

[flagged]

LMAo. I just gave you an objective breakdown of what happened and suddenly, I'm prone to conspiracy theories? I gave you the info of two people Elon Musk has platformed explicitly (EndWokeness, Tate brothers) and how they inflamed the riots across the UK, and somehow, what you deduced is that I'm a conspiracy theory type?

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

#237

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

mstipetic wrote: post #11
adventured wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no possible alternatives to US based services unless you enjoy extreme restrictions on speech. Europe has become a big no-go zone for speech over the past decade, they're outright hostile and authoritarian about it (with only a few exceptions among European nations). And the direction re liberalism and human rights in Europe is overwhelmingly hostile toward speech. And for South America, Africa and Asia you…

[flagged]

> I see no reason why someone should be allowed to spread obvious lies

The right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech. Also the lies you think are “obvious” are almost certainly not obvious to everyone - they rarely are. And if someone cannot share a different view then you can’t arrive at the truth.

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

#238

Post by djbusby »

aguaviva wrote: post #173
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91

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…

Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. And who is her boss, again?

Maybe you're being facetious but, CEOs report to shareholders as a sort of collective boss. Loads of shareholders in Twitter listed here https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-re... (needs ad-block) and Elmo is a big shareholder.

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

#239

Post by cocacola1 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #205
croes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know it's about the people who stormed government buildings in a riot to overthrow the government? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta... Musk ist protecting the Brazil version of the January 6 rioters of the US.

The winners determine whether it is an overthrow attempt or a protest.

Apparently not.

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

#240

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

tootie wrote: post #218
throwaway48476 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

If you look at the revelations from Zuckerberg‘s letter this week, you will see that they were not good faith recommendations. They were highly aggressive demands made in forceful ways. Remember, the administration that issued these demands is also in control of the agencies that regulate the same company. For example, the FTC, who could determine that the company is acting anti-competitively or whatever else. They are in a position of power above this company, and therefore, even if they had made the suggestion in a friendly way, it would still be from a position of power that could compel them.
Post reply on HN