[flagged]
[flagged]
Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
641–650 of 855 posts
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#642Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk is not perfect by any means Musk is not perfect by any means wrt free speech. His version of being a free speech absolutist is that people who agree with him should absolutely have the right to free speech.
> His version of being a free speech absolutist is that people who agree with him should absolutely have the right to free speech. So he's merely an equal and opposite reaction to what the other tribe have been doing for ages? He didn't fundamentally change Twitter. He bought a powerful propaganda tool/weapon and aimed it in the opposite direction. (I suppose he's also using it as his own personal megaphone, whereas…
> So he's merely an equal and opposite reaction
> He bought a powerful propaganda tool/weapon and aimed it in the opposite direction.
I'd say not. I don't think twitter itself wasn't aimed directly in any direction before Musk, other than “away from where firing may cause twitter problems”. They operated from a position of cowardice rather than political bias.
Sometimes this was towards the right because there was a fairly centrist or centre-left¹ bias online, but it often very much wasn't. For a clear case of them not aiming at the right, look at them leaving Trump and many like him alone at a time when they were flagrantly going against twitter policies, but slapping them for that would have caused too much grief back at them. It may be a complete coincidence², but Musk first started getting really serious about taking over around the time twitter started cracking down on that group (having joked about it prior to that IIRC, though it did take over a full year for his first actual takeover bid to happen).
----
[1] These definitions are difficult. Often what America seems to see as centre-left or even actually moderate left, is things that many over this side of the big pond would see as more centrist.
[2] Though I strongly suspect not.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#643I'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…
You can "be from Brazil" and still not understand the matter. Legal decisions are not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". They are a matter of law and facts.
How exactly was the judge's decision here not in accordance with the law?
I'm not "a part of the government base" and I happen to think this decision was lawful. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is doing so for political reasons. It would be too shallow to do so.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And what would happen if they did not comply? It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I
That's a stretch. They could have decided twitter was non compliant and started treating them a little less gently but would they order content be removed or issue fines or some other direct punishment? Probably not.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#645I'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
Irrelevant. Disagreeing on moral terms is not the same as deciding it has not followed the law and must face repercussions, which is what was decided here.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
Good faith meaning they believed the analysis of likely disinformation was correct and not politically motivated.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#647I'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…
Do you not have some sort of expedited appeals process in Brazil to short circuit maverick judges like this?
Please don't buy into the lazy narrative that this is a "maverick judge". That's an incorrect take that is fueled by political propaganda.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#648Earlier 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.
Oh, true. But the problem is that Musk, rich has he is, can't run Twitter indefinitely without revenue (more than he's getting today, and it's likely declining). He needs it to perform financially if it's to continue to be a going concern.
He's going the other route - lower costs. He got rid of the overwhelming majority of staff, moved (or is moving?) the HQ out of San Francisco and California - meaning lower costs + lower tax, and so on. So while revenue has decreased, so have costs. In later 2023 he stated that it was expected for Twitter to be profitable early in 2024. Given there was no follow up announcement I doubt this goal was achieved, but it does suggest that it's probably quite close to being in the black. And that's quite good for a company which was only made profit 2 years in its entire existence.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#649Twitter is 'banned' in Pakistan for very similar reasons (requiring a local representative, requiring censorship, etc) under the guise of 'national security concerns'. We are all still using it via VPN. We get all the govt related info from it, and no one is asking, how come the govt dept themselves are using twitter when it's banned? No one will move to bluesky/threads/mastodon because as I said everyone is on twitt…
What's happening in Pakistan has no bearing on what's happening in Brazil. Just because "twitter is banned" in both countries doesn't mean it was banned for the same reasons or that the ban applies in the same way.
Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.
Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla?
Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business.
Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwest Airlines -[1]
[0] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-b...