811–820 of 855 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
72% of Brazilians do not agree with the banning of X: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UleMSw8m3o
That’s a random sampling with a tiny group of people. You might as well do an internet poll on a very directed channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so sure. I mean, as long as Bluesky doesn't just simply ignore a judge. Also, there has been some backlash.
Bluesky isn’t a centralized service, the developers cannot themselves comply with judicial orders (any of them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is not black and white... there are shades of grey. Sometimes censorship is lawful and/or justified, sometimes it is not. I don't know if, in this case, it is justified or not, but it seems to be lawful (the same way that the censorship requests in India and Turkey were), as far as I can tell (I assume a judge of the Supreme Court knows a bit more about Brazilian law than you and me). Given that Musk/Twitte…
It's not irrelevant to me, which why I'm asking. I'm asking if you would have preferred Musk to be consistent and ban those accounts instead. And if so, why? Do you agree with censorship if and only if it's legal (whatever that means in a particular jurisdiction)? Or is there some other reason?
In this particular case, I do not have enough information to state with certainty whether I think this particular case is legitimate or not, but it does seem to be lawful (which is the criterion that is seemingly important for Twitter/Musk).
I have no particular preference with regards to whether Musk chooses to be consistent or not: that's his decision and he/Twitter is the one that has to endure the consequences of his actions (not me). Since I am not a Twitter user, it does not affect me either way, and I don't see how it will significantly affect Brazilian's capacity to freely communicate (note: there are plenty of other private communication platforms that do comply with Brazilian law... Telegram, Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook, etc.).
On the other hand, I do think it is hypocritical to claim to be a "defender of free speech", and then both engage in non-state-mandated censorship AND comply with state-mandated censorship (as long as it suits him or Twitter). It's a laughable claim. That was my only point.
“Masterful gambit, sir.” (X is facing a deep decline in revenue, cutting its valuation from $44B to ~$12B [Musk’s stake is worth ~$7B], and Musk makes a choice that drives millions of users to an alternate site: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitters-revenue-collapses-84... )
More power to him. He’s making the hard choices and paying a steep price for actually standing for free speech like no other big tech does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said as much in my comment, pointing out that these scientists with differing takes were not the bad guys: “These scientists believed they were asking reasonable questions and pointing out potential inaccuracies.” The bad guys were the people who took this receding debate within the field as evidence of conspiracies and worse, and convinced thousands of people to treat their AIDS condition with quackery instead of…
Well with climate change we have no scientists saying otherwise because we see they get attacked and lose funding by the quackery of the public and governments. As evident by the idiots on HN.
Fifty years ago, there was no shortage of funding for medical scientists who tried to prove that tobacco didn't cause cancer. (You can guess where that funding came from.)
I think banning any network that allows citizens to air their views, whatever they may be, is very dangerous. Free speech that is free of control is essential. I also think that anyone, especially someone prone to childish tantrums like Musk, having unquestionable control of a major network on which citizens can air their views, is also very dangerous. Free speech that is free of control is essential.
Twitter isn’t a network where anyone can air their views. Elon regularly takes punitive action to mark links that criticize him as containing malware, has accounts banned that post evidence of his misdeeds, etc. We have a network where you can post what you want to say. It’s called the World Wide Web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are HN’s guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment isn’t kind, and is calling me names. I am not sure why you cannot just calmly speak to the issue instead of saying that I am buying into “bot-fed rhetoric” or spreading misinformation. The guidelines explicitly say to assume good faith. > Moraes has the power to decide on this matter and the court will review his decision collecti…
You're skipping the part where the people they were asking to ban were calling for a coup against the democratically elected government, which is not legal in Brazil. Your argument is a strawman.
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…
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…
Oh... so now Twatter/Musk is "god-like" and above the law? Judge Dredd?
Why Elon doesn't bring "peace and liberty" to China? Or other nice countries?