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

481–490 of 855 posts

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

#481

Post by bobbruno »

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…

That's the legal justification for blocking X now, not the root cause. Musk did more than refuse to appoint a representative in Brazil (which could be a subsidiary or any legal resident, not necessarily a native Brazilian). X had representation, and when the natural people leading that representation firm were sued (which is legal in Brazil), he shut down the representation, putting X in a non-compliance state to Brazilian law.

The whole thing started because X refused to take down posts judged as defamatory against some politicians in Brazil, as well as some profiles accused of consistently posting fake news and borderline illegal content. One can disagree with the ruling and appeal, but ignoring a Supreme Court Justice order is not a legal option, which led to the escalation.

True that no one would want to step in as a legal representative of X in Brazil right now, but that doesn't change the legal requirement - it exists so that the State has the power to enforce law over companies effectively operating in the country. The US is doing something similar (in process, motivations are quite different) by threatening to ban TikTok, for instance.

The Starlink ruling is mostly being considered an overreach by the Justice. It may take some time, but it will likely be withdrawn. Him deciding to keep the service for free, as long as it complies with the law, bears no matter and should be read most likely as a publicity stunt.

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

#482

Post by neonsunset »

a_victorp wrote: post #441
matheusmoreira wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no coup. There was a protest. The protesters wanted the military to enact a coup. And the military did not attempt a coup. You simply cannot claim that elderly people with bibles and flags amounts to a coup or even an attempt at one. This was discussed at length only two days ago. If you disagree with this, just refer to this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387024 My account is rate l…

Asking for a coup IS an attempted coup

When we, Ukrainians, stood up to oligarchiat/mafia russian-puppet governing party in 2013-2014, what do you call this?

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

#483

Post by jokethrowaway »

pavlov wrote: post #420
conradev wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree that he is hyper fixated on specific things like gender but – I do think that there are elements of the “woke mind virus” that are okay with censorship. I don’t think that censorship has any place in a democracy, and I do think it is a problem we need to address. The executive branch asked Twitter to ban a NY Post story on the grounds that it was misinformation when it wasn’t. It was “malinformation”: http…

Musk’s Twitter actively censors and promotes content based on the personal whims of the billionaire owner. Is that really better for democracy? The Twitter/X experiment seems to have primarily succeeded in demonstrating that nobody has good solutions for this problem, and just repeating words like “misinformation” and “free speech” doesn’t get us any closer to a solution. Props to Bluesky for trying something else, a…

The opposite was true before Musk.

Some friends have an ancap libertarian and they were targeted before.

Woke content is not censored and you can find it on X, it's just that most left-wing people left for alternatives.

I went to bluesky briefly and I was inundated by transgender explicit content. I didn't open it again.

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

#484

Post by a_victorp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #319
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions We can. But we don't and never have. Anyone arguing for the freedom to lie without consequence is off the deep end. There has never been a society that doesn't punish lying and fraud. (What constitutes a lie is a deeper question.) > even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a…

I totally agree with you.

Saying that lying is part of the truth finding process demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how any science work.

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

#485

Post by 123pie123 »

kelnos wrote: post #450
n_plus_1_acc wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Executives have, by definition, cobtrol over everything inside their company.

That's not even a little bit true. Even the CEO is at the mercy of their board, and their shareholders. Other CxO positions are subservient to the CEO. Often VPs are considered executives, and they certainly don't have control over everything inside their company. If Twitter/X were to hire a rep in Brazil, regardless of the title they're given, that rep would have little to no power over the moderation choices of the…

Can you explain who has control over a company then?

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

#486

Post by Wytwwww »

fjkdlsjflkds wrote: post #367
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…

> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences. > Note that th…

[flagged]

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

#487

Post by jokethrowaway »

wkat4242 wrote: post #400
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He believes the woke mind virus is a threat because he has a trans kid.

Yeah so much for supporting your children in their chosen life path :'( Imagine having to completely break contact with your own father because he hates who you are so much :'( https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61880709

[flagged]

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

#488

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

kstenerud wrote: post #421
kstenerud wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partisan/political because Musk is partisan/political. And it's not just Musk. We've been living in a fantasy land of "no political affiliation" in the tech world for decades, and now that the age of the hyper-rich has come once again, they are realizing the benefits of using the power they wield to shape the worlds they live in. So now in the early stages of this century's great fight, we'll see our beloved tec…

Looking at the responses, I can see that people are still viewing this through the limited lens of left vs right. This is of course a thing in that nobody can hide their colors anymore, but I'm specifically talking about the rich now feeling empowered enough that they even have the hubris to challenge governments of the world for their own benefit, and in some cases even build their own empires to escape the limitati…

As an outsider, I can't help but feel that the American election system that boils everything down to just two parties imposes a limited binary lens onto at least the American view of the world.

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

#489

Post by Wytwwww »

fjkdlsjflkds wrote: post #391
extheat wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.

If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "ci…

> If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts

In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?

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

#490

Post by FollowingTheDao »

kstenerud wrote: post #474
mikrotikker wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is all that matters. Musk is not perfect by any means here but he is better than the rest. He is exporting the 1st amendment to us nations who don't get to experience such freedoms. Which is what Twitter should have been doing, instead of kowtowing to the likes of the German and Saudi govts among others...

Free speech is a dog whistle. We can't have actual "free speech" in the pure sense of the term (just like we can't have pure democracy) because it would erode public confidence and destroy our democratic nations in the process. And there are outside actors currently working hard to ensure that this happens, because they want a return to the old imperial world order (where powerful nations capture territory and expand…

> Free speech is a dog whistle. We can't have actual "free speech" in the pure sense of the term

If you are in the U.S I am sorry you have this take on free speech, because it is distorted.

Free speech is defined by law and the law is clear. Freedom of speech means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Post reply on HN