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

And Europe is actually resisting better than US due to election system. Here in best case scenario they are number 2, and took them a long time to get there after Trump

In the US, a populist just needs to win a primary, ie 50% of 50% of the American votes, and he is immediately at least nr2 in the run, and they get the support of one of the major parties.

Saying that populists / extremists also exist in Europe is just a bad comparison.

> You can if there is a venue for that. If the government is behaving in arbitrary and authoritarian way trusting it to do the right thing is a bit silly...

I assume that the judge in question used a specific criminal or civil law to justify his judicial order. If Twitter believes this law to be unconstitutional, the correct venue for their legal recourse is the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, until the Constitutional Court decides to hear their challenge and (possibly) revoke the law in question (possibly with retroactive effects), they still have to comply with judicial orders.

From what I understand, the Senate (if they believe the judge in question to be acting outside the law) has the necessary powers to boot the judge from the Supreme Court, if necessary. Twitter doesn't, sorry.

> Nobody is arguing about that, though.

People are arguing based on the supposed protection that the Brazilian constitution reserves for freedom of expression. This protection is not absolute, though (as pointed out by my example).

And constitutional law is not something that is directly applied: it mostly serves as guiding principles for the production of specific civil and criminal laws by the legislative power.

"This judicial order is inconstitutional" is simply a bad argument (from a legal point-of-view); a much more reasonable argument is "this judicial order is justified/based on an unconstitutional law" (but that is not the argument that is being made, as far as I can tell). If the judge is justifying his orders based on an inconstitutional law, then you should challenge the law itself, not the judicial order (if you can't really challenge the judicial order, which seems to be the case).

> Maybe appointing people who behave like schoolchildren to the supreme court is not the best idea then?

You do know that there is a law regulating so-called "deepfakes" in Brazil, right? (https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=929278...)

For someone who claims to be concerned about Brazilian law, Musk sure seems willing to ignore Brazilian laws, whenever it suits him.

Also, maybe it's not just the judge that is acting like a schoolchild, in this context. What do you think is going to happen if you talk back and threaten a judge with being arrested, even in a US court of law? Usually not fun things.

Are French Presidential elections so different? And the UK only has two major parties, so the outcome will be similar.

> You are ignoring the lead-up to this situation, (...)

I am not ignoring anything. The fact is that Brasil has laws to fight disinformation and libel, and those laws are being enforced.

Your personal opinion also glances over the fact that Brasil was recently subjected to a coup attempt to drive the country into a fascist dictatorship, heavily pushed by a massive disinformation campaign in social media services like Elon Musk's Twitter.

What you are trying to glance over is the fact that none of this issue is related to free speech. Elon Musk tried to avoid complying with a nation's laws with a ill-advised stunt of pulling Twitter's corporate presence from Brasil. As expected from any jurisdiction in the world, not cooperating with the judicial system bears consequences.

To drive the point home, I stress the fact that Elon Musk did far worse to support fascist and authoritarian dictatorships attacking free speech, such as his support for Erdogan's regime censoring opposition and non-supoortive posts during the last sham elections. For that, Elon Musk's reaction was claiming that either some messages were boosted or all of them were boosted, and he claimed it's better to have some (only supporting a dictator) than none. But for Brasil, the need to appoint a mere legal representative to process requests was now deemed too much? And enough to pull a dying company from a +200M market? It doesn't pass the smell test.

Oh so it is now "wise" to "keep mouth shut". No wonder the West is so screwed. It has a lot of "wise men". Very few, like Elon, who will put their money where their mouth is. What you consider "wise", in this context at least, is basically to just put your head down, accept the diktats of authority, entertain the crazed loonies in society and it is all sunshine and rainbows!