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

731–740 of 855 posts

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

#731

Post by wkat4242 »

lolinder wrote: post #575
wkat4242 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest with the current polarisation levels in politics it's no longer possible to be neutral. The conservative side is now even strongarming companies into abandoning their diversity programs! This is just really not ok, I'm part of the LGBTIQ+ support network in our company and this kind of thing is really making waves. People are worried, even though we're a Europe based company where this is not a contested…

Hi! I'm neutral. DEI was a political statement—one that you agreed with and felt was necessary. Abandoning DEI is also a political statement—one that you disagree with and think is not okay. You're welcome to disagree with the people who disagree with DEI, but I'd hesitate to claim that these companies were "strongarmed" into it—the programs always existed as a political tool for the company to curry favor, not as so…

Well companies are by their very nature immoral. They don't care about any kind of morals, just making money. You even have to strongarm them into following the law (see Boeing, Volkswagen etc).

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

#732

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jack_pp wrote: post #548
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is this topic that's only in vogue in tech circles? Wokeism? Wokeism as it pertains to social media's discussion of the woke mind virus. Everyone has an opinion on it. But it's not of practical relevance to most people, certainly not most voters. Sort of like modern art.

Considering a ton of podcasts talk about it and they're not in the tech bubble I'd say it's a pretty important topic especially in the US.

> Considering a ton of podcasts talk about it and they're not in the tech bubble I'd say it's a pretty important topic especially in the US

Yes, like modern art. It’s talked about a lot. But it’s an obsession of a few and irrelevant to most Americans.

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

#733

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jack_pp wrote: post #548
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is this topic that's only in vogue in tech circles? Wokeism? Wokeism as it pertains to social media's discussion of the woke mind virus. Everyone has an opinion on it. But it's not of practical relevance to most people, certainly not most voters. Sort of like modern art.

Considering a ton of podcasts talk about it and they're not in the tech bubble I'd say it's a pretty important topic especially in the US.

> Considering a ton of podcasts talk about it and they're not in the tech bubble I'd say it's a pretty important topic especially in the US

Yes, like modern art. It’s talked about a lot, especially by a particular core who gain money and influence from it. But it’s an obsession of a few and irrelevant to most Americans. It certainly doesn’t build one a national platform.

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

#734

Post by jazzyjackson »

seanvelasco wrote: post #562

I like Bluesky, its devs, and its tech. I even built a third-party web client for it in Solid.js. But I find Bluesky to be too toxic. There's too much unwanted nudity, even if all my filters are turned on.

I wonder if anyone's doing intersections and differences on feeds yet - would be awesome if there were people aggregating all the only fans accounts so I could just subtract that from my algorithmic feed.

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

#735

Post by fjkdlsjflkds »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #57
katbyte wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon musk was happy to allow government “censorship” it turkey India and other countries where it aligned with his views.

I was commenting strictly on what’s in the articles’ links. If he did that, it would be just as deplorable as the censorship they were claiming to oppose.

> If he did that, it would be just as deplorable [...]

No need for hypotheticals. He did do that (this is an easily-verifiable fact [1][2][3]).

> [...] the censorship they were claiming to oppose.

The thing is that this is clearly an empty claim, when Musk has no problems either complying with similar censoring orders from right-wing governments (Modi, Erdogan) or with arbitrarily censoring people for using medically-approved terms (like "cis" or "cisgender") that he simply does not like [4][5].

All of this censorship by Twitter is (legally) 100% within their right to do, as a private entity, but then whatever claims he (or Twitter) has of being a "defender of free speech" ring a bit hollow.

Given these things, the more plausible explanation for Musk's actions is not that he wants to defend free speech (or that he is fundamentally against censorship), but simply that the request comes from a (left-wing) government that is not ideologically aligned with his views.

It's a choice. But choices have consequences.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitte...

[2] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04...

[3] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja...

[4] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitte...

[5] https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319...

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

#736

Post by lolinder »

wkat4242 wrote: post #731
lolinder wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! I'm neutral. DEI was a political statement—one that you agreed with and felt was necessary. Abandoning DEI is also a political statement—one that you disagree with and think is not okay. You're welcome to disagree with the people who disagree with DEI, but I'd hesitate to claim that these companies were "strongarmed" into it—the programs always existed as a political tool for the company to curry favor, not as so…

Well companies are by their very nature immoral. They don't care about any kind of morals, just making money. You even have to strongarm them into following the law (see Boeing, Volkswagen etc).

Yes. Which is why lasting change will never come from persuading the leadership of companies that your personal set of morals need to be followed if they want to be successful—they'll follow you for as long as you are powerful and bail as soon as you aren't.

You have to change hearts and minds within the broader population in order to bring lasting power towards change, but that's something that the modern crop of progressives entirely gave up on 10+ years ago in favor of racing to the finish line and declaring victory prematurely.

(Cue comments that the right can't be reasoned with so there's no point in trying.)

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

#737

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

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 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).

It was a secret order from one justice of the Supreme Court, not an official order or decision from the whole of the Supreme Court. It came with an order to maintain secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, which tells you all you need to know about its legality and ethics. Anyways, X’s appeals were not heard by the same supreme court, and that’s probably in part because the other justices are also intimidated by the aggression and power grab by the authoritarians in the regime - namely de Moraes and Lula himself.

If a government commits atrocities at the highest level in secret, should no one refuse or speak up? Of course not - it’s by airing these out in public that it can even be challenged, if there is corruption or authoritarianism. You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.

> Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.

This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries. Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied. It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.

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

#739

Post by rescbr »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #716
insane_dreamer wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what evidence? IG, FB, WhatsApp, etc are all still running in Brazil last I checked.

They previously banned Telegram, and might come for these other services next. But selective enforcement is also part of how injustices are performed in authoritarian regimes. Note that most websites and businesses on the Internet don’t need to have a local representative in Brazil, for example, though the Supreme Court justice here demanded Twitter have one (just so he could jail the person like an act of theater).…

Twitter/X has a local entity set up in Sao Paulo.

The previous administrator was removed and another wasn't appointed, running foul from the societal laws.

Telegram doesn’t have a local entity and complies with Brazilian law, which is the only thing that is required. There is absolutely no need for local representation of foreign entities in Brazilian law.

Twitter having a local office is simply a commercial decision - easier to conduct business, better relationships with customers, local tax vs duty over importation of services etc.

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

#740

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

throwadobe wrote: post #649
ryzvonusef wrote: post #462

Twitter 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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN