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

361–370 of 855 posts

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

#361

Post by EnigmaFlare »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #360
EnigmaFlare wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud isn't just lying, it also has to be for some sort of personal gain, typically financial. You're taking their money too. If you tell people that if they invest in your pyramid scheme they'll get rich but you have no actual pyramid scheme and don't take anyone's money, then it's not fraud and shouldn't be banned in my opinion. But it is a lie.

> Fraud isn't just lying, it also has to be for some sort of personal gain One, not true. If a real estate agent sells you a house based on a bunch of lies and somehow forgets to charge a commission, they're still punished. Two, you're still drawing criteria per which speech is punished.

Well OK but he still sold the house. If you're not doing anything, just talking, it's not fraud. People often offer to sell a bridge to somebody as a way of saying they're gullible. That's not fraud because they're not actually selling the bridge.

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

#362

Post by UberFly »

throwadobe wrote: post #250
nickpsecurity wrote: post #7

One of the linked articles said it boiled down to X being ordered to censor political opponents of those in power. They chose not to. I’m glad. Now, traffic is going to Bluesky. I wonder if this means that Bluesky has or will be offered the same choice. We might see what the character of that organization is by what choice they make.

It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.

>X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence

God this sounds so 1984-ish.

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

#363

Post by viraptor »

bad_user wrote: post #336
viraptor wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection It's only for existing customers and because they can't charge them anymore, but don't want to drop the customers just yet. It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture.

> It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture. Why is there someone always making this comment every time a company or someone rich does something good for a bunch of people? There's no such thing as altruism, with humans it's all self-interest, and that's good actually. Might as well point out that the water is wet. So why make this comment?

Altruism exists. Maybe you haven't seen it yet, but it really does.

I made the comment, because parent suggested that starlink did something for the citizens in general. That's not correct. The good they did was incidental to preserving customers until they can start charging again.

And specifically I mentioned that, because the good part gets played up as some kind of freedom stance by many people online... but it's not. Even the announcement didn't describe it as such.

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

#364

Post by jdietrich »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #341
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter was already super partisan long before he took it over Sure. But Elon changed teams. He used to be bipartisan. But he chose a champion in the aftermath of Covid and--by the looks of it--he's chosen a bad one. (In an alternate universe where Musk stuck to what he's good at, I could see the entire Artemis programme being delegated to SpaceX and a bipartisan adoption of Tesla as America's EV standard bearer. I…

I think people see Musk differently from how he actually is. Or at least how he sees himself. He has always said, for many years, that he got into SpaceX to work towards the goal of making humans a multiplanetary species, and he got into electric cars to work towards the goal of having a sustainable energy society. I think he legitimately believes that “the woke mind virus” is an existential threat to our society, an…

I remember when the Toyota Prius was a potent symbol of everything that was wrong with smug liberals. Lazy comedians still use the Prius as a punchline. Why doesn't a Tesla Model 3 carry the same sort of political baggage? Why don't right-wing conspiracy theorists consider Musk to be part of the "WHO/WEF globalist elite", despite the fact that he's a tech billionaire who is literally trying to plug people's brains into The Matrix and colonise space?

By taking sides in a partisan culture war, he has made his core mission essentially non-partisan. Maybe he does really believe all of that stuff about "the woke mind virus", or maybe he realised that he can buy a priceless amount of political capital amongst people who would instinctively hate the goals of his project just by uttering the right incantations.

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

#365

Post by locallost »

Here is a friendly reminder that Twitter/X started cooperating way more with government takedown requests since Musk took over [1].

So obviously Musk is not protecting free speech here because he usually doesn't do it. What is he protecting?

[1] https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...

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

#366

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EnigmaFlare wrote: post #361
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fraud isn't just lying, it also has to be for some sort of personal gain One, not true. If a real estate agent sells you a house based on a bunch of lies and somehow forgets to charge a commission, they're still punished. Two, you're still drawing criteria per which speech is punished.

Well OK but he still sold the house. If you're not doing anything, just talking, it's not fraud. People often offer to sell a bridge to somebody as a way of saying they're gullible. That's not fraud because they're not actually selling the bridge.

> he still sold the house. If you're not doing anything, just talking, it's not fraud

Let's edit the premise. No sale occurs. The agent spins some yarn, but you catch on and report them to a regulator. Do you expect them to go unpunished simply because it was all talk? Should they?

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

#367

Post by fjkdlsjflkds »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91
dgfitz wrote: post #74

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…

> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders.

This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences.

> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”).

It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution.

In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance.

> If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.

In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders.

Also, it probably is not a great idea to try to intimidate/aggravate/insult/threaten the judge (https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481...) during those legal proceedings. Judges tend to not love that.

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

#368

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jdietrich wrote: post #364
pfannkuchen wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people see Musk differently from how he actually is. Or at least how he sees himself. He has always said, for many years, that he got into SpaceX to work towards the goal of making humans a multiplanetary species, and he got into electric cars to work towards the goal of having a sustainable energy society. I think he legitimately believes that “the woke mind virus” is an existential threat to our society, an…

I remember when the Toyota Prius was a potent symbol of everything that was wrong with smug liberals. Lazy comedians still use the Prius as a punchline. Why doesn't a Tesla Model 3 carry the same sort of political baggage? Why don't right-wing conspiracy theorists consider Musk to be part of the "WHO/WEF globalist elite", despite the fact that he's a tech billionaire who is literally trying to plug people's brains in…

> Why doesn't a Tesla Model 3 carry the same sort of political baggage?

When was the last time you were in a red state? Driving an EV of any kind is a strong political statement.

> By taking sides in a partisan culture war, he has made his core mission essentially non-partisan

Not how partisan affiliation works--think of someone who flip flops from one side to the other. They aren't seen as above the fray or non-partisan. Just unreliable (albeit, usually, useful).

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

#369

Post by extheat »

input_sh wrote: post #338
nox101 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so strange for you to blame this on Musk. Twitter was already super partisan long before he took it over

Who else is there to blame for Twitter refusing to designate a representative, leading to a ban? I'm sure pre-Musk Twitter wouldn't have lost the entire market in the 7th most populous country.

There is much more story that you’re either uninformed about or willfully ignoring. The correct move was to remove people from harms way for decisions they have no control over, hence their staff exit from the country.

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

#370

Post by jack_pp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #344
pfannkuchen wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people see Musk differently from how he actually is. Or at least how he sees himself. He has always said, for many years, that he got into SpaceX to work towards the goal of making humans a multiplanetary species, and he got into electric cars to work towards the goal of having a sustainable energy society. I think he legitimately believes that “the woke mind virus” is an existential threat to our society, an…

> he legitimately believes that “the woke mind virus” is an existential threat to our society Sure. I don't think he's a hypocrite. He has , however, hyper fixated on a topic that's in vogue in tech circles but totally irrelevant elsewhere. Unlike in technology, where one can credibly fail upwards, doing that in politics comes at the cost of influence. And in this block order we're seeing, tangibly, the consequences…

What is this topic that's only in vogue in tech circles? Wokeism?
Post reply on HN