Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#51

Post by matheusmoreira »

airstrike wrote: post #31
nomilk wrote: post #11

Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). Love or hate X,…

They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments…

> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist

The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#52

Post by carlosjobim »

Fnoord wrote: post #42
carlosjobim wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.

> That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show th…

That is exactly how the Soviet control apparatus reasoned. They were protecting the motherland from external influence. Your reasoning doesn't differ from theirs in any way at all. You are completely aligned. Don't you think the Soviets were just as paranoid about external influence? While doing it themselves to other countries.

Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list of accounts which have been limited. The censors are very open about who has their account limited and why (all political candidates during elections). The control fantasies of hackers aren't aligned to reality in this affair. Only aligned to Soviet doctrines which have been obsoleted for 40 years now.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#53

Post by maleldil »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #51
airstrike wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments…

> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.

Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#54

Post by onetimeusename »

carlosjobim wrote: post #36
Fnoord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting. But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That i…

Your reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored. I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the publ…

I think people misunderstand what democracy is. To many people they think democracy is a resistance against, ultimately, the Nazis again. The West is structured this way. Post WWII we had a quiet revolution around this. It seems so ingrained people don't even think about it.

To many people, they believe there is a constant and persistent threat of Nazis and that it is the duty of enlightened government officials to continuously stage interventions to stop them. They think people are the problem so it is good to be totalitarian. It is kind of a type of paranoia it's just widely accepted as fact and it's a part of Western institutional ethos.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#55

Post by Fnoord »

carlosjobim wrote: post #52
Fnoord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show th…

That is exactly how the Soviet control apparatus reasoned. They were protecting the motherland from external influence. Your reasoning doesn't differ from theirs in any way at all. You are completely aligned. Don't you think the Soviets were just as paranoid about external influence? While doing it themselves to other countries. Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list o…

Your Soviet comparisons are a dishonest take. They're also moot, since an issue would be authoritarianism. Regardless, yes, authorities need to exercise their authority to ensure the integrity of elections. It is difficult to do this in a fair way, and regardless it will stir controversy (another vector to throw oil on).

The external influences are documented. We know the Russians meddled with elections in The Netherlands (the 2016 Ukraine referendum), Romania (recently), Brexit, Trump 2016 (via the Clinton hack), 2020, and 2024, and likely also Hungary. In regards to Romania, yes the elections were repeated. That thing tends to happen when elections are fraudulent.

> Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list of accounts which have been limited. The censors are very open about who has their account limited and why (all political candidates during elections).

Because it is about a local law regarding airtime. A law Musk doesn't respect. But because now it requires an active action of the mark to get into a propaganda tarpit, instead of the timeline, it is a reasonable deterrent.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#56

Post by pocksuppet »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #48
pocksuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with saying that it's censoring every candidate?

Censorship targets subversion. Censors seek to prevent the spread of antiestablishment information and ideas. So one can hardly claim that a universal ban on algorithmic recommendation for all candidates is censorship.

Censorship doesn't have to "target subversion" or "prevent the spread of antiestablishment information" to be censorship.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#57

Post by matheusmoreira »

maleldil wrote: post #53
matheusmoreira wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.

Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.

> Instead of applying the law, the supreme court decided to legislate...

Actual quote from an actual laywer I knew, one of my professors, around 10 years ago.

My legal medicine professor, who was a doctor and a cop, was onto something as well:

> Doctors think they're gods, judges know.

Here's another interesting thing an actual lawyer once told me to my face:

> Judges = gods in this country, and supreme court judges even more so.

This is nothing new, it's been going on for decades and decades. Anyone who deals with legal matters can see it. Start observing and you too will see the pattern of judicial activism. Every single occurrence of it is a small coup against the representatives we actually elected.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#58

Post by matheusmoreira »

iamnothere wrote: post #46
Fnoord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show th…

Why not let them say whatever they want, but just cancel the election after the fact if you feel like the result endangers democracy? It’s worked before. It seems a little more honest and above-board, as well. No smoke-filled back rooms, just “election cancelled”.

Cancelling an election has "this is not the result I wanted, do it again" undertones.

Re: Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline

#59

Post by matheusmoreira »

pocksuppet wrote: post #56
matheusmoreira wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship targets subversion. Censors seek to prevent the spread of antiestablishment information and ideas. So one can hardly claim that a universal ban on algorithmic recommendation for all candidates is censorship.

Censorship doesn't have to "target subversion" or "prevent the spread of antiestablishment information" to be censorship.

Even if we use an all-encompassing definition of censorship, this still doesn't quite qualify. It's just preventing the recommendation algorithms from working on the politician accounts. The accounts themselves were not censored.
Post reply on HN