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

781–790 of 855 posts

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

#781

Post by stiltzkin »

stevebmark wrote: post #44
rvz wrote: post #2

Several folks in Brazil had much to choose from out of Threads, Mastodon and Bluesky as alternatives to Twitter / X. Now that X got banned in Brazil and to potentially lose over 100M+ users we are starting to see which platforms they are choosing to sign up to. So far, Bluesky is seeing a surge in user registrations after the invite system was lifted a year ago. I would expect Threads to also see a surge in registrat…

Mastodon was dead from the start, it isn’t in the running. Threads has too big of an image problem to overcome. No one wants Instagram for Twitter. Bluesky is the only platform currently that has a chance, but it’s an under funded, tiny team who can’t ship on time. Bluesky will see a surge in registrations but no change in DAU as they still haven’t supported video, so no one will stay on the site.

[dead]

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

#782

Post by matheusmoreira »

croes wrote: post #742
matheusmoreira wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> attack and invasion Aren't all protests? I don't remember many protests that didn't involve closing down roads, burning things down and whatnot. Protests that don't do things like that are usually so irrelevant they don't get Wikipedia articles written about them. > The reason why it isn't called a coup is be cause they failed. It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt would be the military seizi…

>Aren't all protests? I don't remember many protests that didn't involve closing down roads, burning things down and whatnot. Protests that don't do things like that are usually so irrelevant they don't get Wikipedia articles written about them. Most protests are peaceful and even the violent one rarely invade government buildings. Whole different level. >It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt w…

> Most protests are peaceful and even the violent one rarely invade government buildings.

Nah. Occupying Brasília buildings is basically the standard brazilian protest at this point. Happened in 2016 as well, and they too insisted the country was suffering a coup, Probably more examples I can't remember off the top of my head.

> It doesn't have to be the military. Most coups are by the military but it's not a necessity.

In this case it absolutely needs to be the military. Because there's no way you can convince me that a bunch of people with bibles and flags tried to seize power in the brazilian capital.

> That's the road to tyranny. Lies spread faster than the truth.

Lies according to whom? You? This judge-king? Yeah, I'll decide for myself, thank you very much. I'm gonna look at the stuff and I'll reach my own conclusions. I don't need or want the judge's help.

> Sadly some people fall for obvious fakes. Just look at all the flat earthers.

Yeah, and? What are we supposed to do about it? "Help" them think correctly? Put the "right" thoughts into their heads? Send them to a forced reeducation camp? The mere thought of someone being that self-righteous is offensive to me. Even if they're right.

The existence of flat earthers is literally not an argument. I think it's illogical but if they want to believe it then it's their problem. It would be incredibly presumptuous of me to try to put the "correct" thoughts into their minds. If they can't be convinced by the study of physics, we're just gonna have to leave them alone and move on with our lives.

If someone can be duped by propaganda into becoming violent in favor of some cause, then democracy is justified in defending itself. Not a second before. And you don't get to "prevent" such things by censoring the speech that led to it either. Any government that steps over that line is a dictatorship.

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

#783

Post by throwadobe »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #772
insane_dreamer wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moraes was granted that authority by the Supreme Court, so it is legal. Whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but Moraes' actions are not "illegal". Moraes does seem to be acting like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is dangerous. But then again Elon acts like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is also dangerous, so I don't really mind that X is getting banned.…

> Moraes was granted that authority by the Supreme Court, so it is legal. This is not exactly true, so let me explain it. Moraes is himself a justice on the Supreme Court. He was not granted authority by it. His own claim actually acknowledges that no new laws (either legislation or constitutional amendments) were passed to give him this power. Instead his claimed power rests on something more confusing and again, il…

[flagged]

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

#784

Post by rtsil »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #518
rtsil wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive). Howev…

> defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others Who decides if someone is harmed? Did I really harm someone if I called them a homophobic slur? Can I say that someone harmed me if the mispronounce my name?

The lawmakers decide. As I quoted, "the Law determines the limits of a freedom."

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

#785

Post by slowhadoken »

viburnum wrote: post #274
slowhadoken wrote: post #244

I’m glad I don’t live in Brazil. Why ban X? It makes no sense.

People used it to organize an attempted coup against a democratically elected government and twitter is not cooperating with the investigation.

I’m reading some more and the election interference happened under Jack Dorsey‘s Twitter not Elon Musk’s X. The Twitter employees involved were fired in the purge after Musk bought and assumed control of the website.

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

#786

Post by rtsil »

Aerroon wrote: post #301
rtsil wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive). Howev…

> In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The…

The "harm" is in relation to other people's constitutional freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech isn't inherently superior to, say, freedom of assembly, freedom of belief, the right to safety in one's person and one's properties, the right to vote, and so on...

It's a question of value: either you think Freedom of Speech is the highest form of freedom and right that one can hold, and all the other freedoms must come second, or that all freedom and rights are equal, and the role of the Constitution and the law is to find a balance between those.

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

#787

Post by matheusmoreira »

amlib wrote: post #167
braunjohnson wrote: post #53

I remain surprised at how casually people will step over the free speech dead body so they can hate on people the media at large has maligned. Regardless of what you think of Musk, where's your outrage over this blatant authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism would be if the government was pre-screening everything that was posted, having agents routinely shaking down social media companies or acting without any support of the law. What happened here is that bad actors have been taking advantages of the lack of accountability that social media had for the last 20 years. When laws were finally issued a few years ago, those "bad actions" could finally be lab…

> Authoritarianism would be if the government was pre-screening everything that was posted

I've got you covered then. Before the 2022 elections, this exact same judge did just that.

I witnessed him and his electoral court censor a documentary a priori. Before watching it, before it was even released, they declared it was "fake news" and did not allow it to be published.

To this day that fact shocks me. In my lifetime, I witnessed the exact same a priori censorship that was omnipresent in last century's military dictatorship, the same dictatorship my parents were subjected to and told me stories about.

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

#788

Post by matheusmoreira »

viburnum wrote: post #274
slowhadoken wrote: post #244

I’m glad I don’t live in Brazil. Why ban X? It makes no sense.

People used it to organize an attempted coup against a democratically elected government and twitter is not cooperating with the investigation.

It was a protest. There was no coup attempt. A coup attempt would be the military launching the operation to seize power and failing. An actual coup would be the military trying it and succeeding.

They didn't try to seize power for themselves. They wanted the military to seize power so it could rule them instead of the elected president. There's a difference. They thought the military would be better rulers. That's just their political position.

There's simply no way you can convincingly claim that a bunch of people, many of them elderly, equipped with bibles and brazilian flags, tried to seize power in the brazilian capital. This country is pathetic but it can't possibly be so weak that it could suffer a coup by people like that.

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

#790

Post by renewedrebecca »

kevinak wrote: post #751
pfraze wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bluesky team worked previously on IPFS and Dat/Hypercore and Secure Scuttlebutt. Whyrusleeping - one of the core authors of IPFS - has been an active technical advisor from the start. ATProto is basically those p2p & content addressed techs moved into the server stack. None of us are bullish on client side p2p for large scale publishing or social applications, and we spent 10 years each doing that.

I'd love to hear what the Bluesky team thinks of Nostr. It seems pretty damning to me that a founder of Bluesky is now talking up the latter.

Dorsey didn't like the idea of moderation, which sure, probably isn't necessary for a while billionaire guy to feel safe.
Post reply on HN