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

281–290 of 855 posts

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

#281

Post by JumpCrisscross »

welshwelsh wrote: post #275
riverrunn01 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, T…

A court ordering for social media accounts to be blocked is censorship, no question about that. If there are "election rules" that regulate what can be posted online, that's censorship. Even if people are inciting violence or formenting revolution, banning them is censorship. Most governments participate in censorship, and most people are OK with some level of censorship. But Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom…

> A court ordering for social media accounts to be blocked is censorship, no question about that

This is a bad litmus test. Courts order fraudsters to stop doing fraud all the time. It's censorship. But it's acceptable censorship, even in America where we have a uniquely-potent First Amendment.

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

#282

Post by thaumasiotes »

wmf wrote: post #232
toomuchtodo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Back in 2020, an acquaintance of mine started ranting to me about covid when I wished her a happy Chinese new year. She was at pains to point out that she got her information from unofficial sources.

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

#283

Post by lxgr »

braiamp wrote: post #196
siproprio wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85... It normally boils down to a , vs . There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

Maybe aspirationally, but practically, even the First Amendment has limits:

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...

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

#284

Post by 23B1 »

petre wrote: post #273
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.

Maybe there was no need to do so because they banned the accounts themselves. They even banned the acting president's account. https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Yes, in the U.S. the obedient capitalists act as proxy censors for the government, in exchange for campaign donations, preferential tax treatment, and weak regulatory enforcement.

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

#285

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #268
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech It's obviously not. We prosecute fraud. No freedom can be absolute unless it is singular.

I wasn’t calling it absolute. I used the word fundamental. My meaning was that giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions, which I feel SCOTUS precedence has explored in very nuanced ways. But that’s not where I was going. I was making the point that even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a ‘lie’ must be allowed since only through that debate can people find their way to the truth. A truth that is just unchallenged feels more like propaganda.

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

#286

Post by tsimionescu »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91
dgfitz wrote: post #74

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…

I think it's worth noting that "this legal order is unconstitutional therefore I won't abide by it" is still illegal to do in any constitutional democracy that I know of, even if you're ultimately right, including in the USA. You can abide by the order and then seek reparations, but you can't claim something is unconstitutional like that.

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

#287

Post by Adrian_Ferreira »

I'm from Brazil and this judge is totally out of control. I agree that X needs to have a legal representative in Brazil, this is correct anywhere, but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with. He threatened us to pay $9k in fines per day if we use VPN to access X. Unless you are part of the government base, it is difficult to find someone who approves of his actions.

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

#288

Post by makeitdouble »

welshwelsh wrote: post #275
riverrunn01 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, T…

A court ordering for social media accounts to be blocked is censorship, no question about that. If there are "election rules" that regulate what can be posted online, that's censorship. Even if people are inciting violence or formenting revolution, banning them is censorship. Most governments participate in censorship, and most people are OK with some level of censorship. But Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom…

> Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom of speech without censorship

That can't work in reality though. So at best it can only be a theoretical ideal, merely a guideline for practical legislation. Same way French constitution has equal rights for all citizen baked into its constitution for more than a century.

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

#289

Post by threeseed »

WalterBright wrote: post #220
eadler wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So he did sue the advertisers.

And unless Musk has some extraordinary evidence it will be difficult to provide those advertisers colluded together to better themselves at the expense of other market participants. Especially when they aren't even in the same markets.

Also if you think this situation is akin to a cartel god knows what you think of IMDB or the Michelin guide.

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

#290

Post by Adrian_Ferreira »

Adrian_Ferreira wrote: post #287

I'm from Brazil and this judge is totally out of control. I agree that X needs to have a legal representative in Brazil, this is correct anywhere, but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with. He threatened us to pay $9k in fines per day if we use VPN to access X. Unless you are part of the government base, it is diffic…

72% of Brazilians do not agree with the banning of X: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UleMSw8m3o
Post reply on HN