Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#2Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company. If the company wants the product to be available, then it should respect local laws the same way it did in Turkey and India.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#3Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#4Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.
> … and ban like 7 accounts
I’m sure that number will never increase.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#5Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.
>for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law)
...and so they have someone to hold ~hostage~ responsible if something goes wrong
>and ban like 7 accounts
And you think they're going to stop there?
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#6Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#7Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.
I'm glad they didn't comply. I don't want social media platforms banning people just because some national government told them to.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#8Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company. If the company wants the product to be available, then it should respect local laws the same way it did in Turkey and India.
>Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company.
What about the rights of people who want to use twitter? Would you use the same characterization for Chinese censorship (ie. "The New York Times is not an fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to [The New York Times Company]")?
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> … and ban like 7 accounts I’m sure that number will never increase.
Didn't seem to stop Twitter in India and Turkey.
Why not just be glad they're taking a stand now? I'm so confused.
Edit: also looking at the history here... They fought those bans too. I'm guessing, due to Indias importance to the IT industry, twitter was unable to pull out entirely, leaving their employees vulnerable if they didn't comply.
Not sure about turkey, but it looks like in this case, they are able to avoid censorship by pulling out entirely. Brazil is an inconsequential country.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#10Note that Elon Musk's definition of free speech includes anything that is not outright illegal, including fake news, see links below. I find it disturbing. The world will be better off without X.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/us/politics/elon-musk-kam...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-grok-ai-fake-elect...