6 ms·

Brazil’s Bolsonaro Bans Social Networks from Removing Some Posts

17 points by mzs 5y ago

gjvnq 5y ago
Full text of the provisory measure¹ in question: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/Mpv/mpv1068.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/Mpv/... (in Portuguese, obviously) ¹A provisory measure (original: medida provisória) is like an executive order: essentially a law made by the President without consulting Congress but provisory measures can only last up to 120 days however, Congress may convert them into an ordinary law which may last forever.
throwawaysea 5y ago
This reminds of when Angela Merkel and other European leaders criticized American big tech companies that all deplatformed Donald Trump (https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problematic-and-perplexing-european-leaders-side-with-trump-over-twitter-ban/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problemat...). Apart from the vague reasons Twitter gave for their ban like Trump not attending Biden’s inauguration (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), it was a move that highlighted that tech companies are indeed as powerful as governments and must be treated as such, with regulation. For international leaders it highlighted the risks to their own nations due to foreign interference. Although in the US we often think of foreign interference as only something done by other countries like Russia, the reality is that Twitter or other companies modifying information flow across societies is explicitly foreign interference. Finally, it’s also worth considering big tech’s censorship/moderation as equivalent to campaign contributions made in kind. Banning one party and not another or altering the exposure of some perspective is political campaigning. Actions taken to censor politicians or political views should be subject to election funding controls and laws. All this is to say that despite all my grievances with the Bolsonaro government, I think this particular move to ensure online freedom of speech is justified. Large monopolist technology companies with government-scale power and unregulated privately owned public town squares are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society.
- nunobrito 5y ago
  Indeed censoring a democratically elected president of a nation had chilling effects in Europe. We remember our not-so-long-ago past with censorship. Social networks are not judges. Governments are not always right. For decades, most of the online world has lived with freedom to express themselves. I'm siding with Brazil on this one. Online freedom matters.
ALittleLight 5y ago
"The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures." This is interesting. I assume they're talking about Ivermectin, which I believe is part of Brazil's official medical strategy and response to covid[1]. American health authorities issue guidance that conflicts with Brazilian health authorities and so American social media companies censor Brazilians? I wonder if there is a group at Google that reaches a position based on research or if they're just taking guidance from authorities. 1 -https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/15/1006198151/covid-pseudoscience-is-choking-brazil https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/15/1006198...
- pvaldes 5y ago
  If Bolsonaro and his cronies were committing a crime [1] wouldn't be removing those videos the same as removing evidence? [1] Not a lawyer, but I bet that I'm not the only human thinking that promoting disinformation and taking bath masses in the middle of a pandemy should count as criminal activity. Is not much different as deliberately giving weapons to toddlers. After more than 580.000 victims and 20 millions of brazilians infected, they can't claim lack of knowledge about the consequences of their acts anymore.
  - boibombeiro 5y ago
    His posts wasn't removed. They were hidden behind a disclaimer, like NSFW content.
- tim333 5y ago
  "pills such as the lice medication ivermectin, the antimalarial chloroquine and popular antibiotic azithromycin as well as anticoagulants, painkillers and a set of vitamins" They seem to be using a variety of unproven stuff.
- boibombeiro 5y ago
  The first removed posts were videos of him visiting cities that were in lockdown, gathering crowds and asking people to deobey the state law and leave their houses. He didn't believe covid was real back them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mc32 5y ago
These media companies need to have some accountability somewhere. The logical way is either via the UN (which is too bureaucratic) or devolve it to each nation. The way things work now is in a way imperialistic. They impose their point of view and culture on everyone even when it goes against what is acceptable locally. People used to call this cultural imperialism but now many regard it as a normal transformation as we have a more globalized world… but many only agree with this pint of view only because they agree with the media and not because they agree in principle. The way to test this is to imagine social media instead amplified and exported a different set of values.

17 points by mzs 5y ago

Full text of the provisory measure¹ in question: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/Mpv/mpv1068.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/Mpv/... (in Portuguese, obviously) ¹A provisory measure (original: medida provisória) is like an executive order: essentially a law made by the President without consulting Congress but provisory measures can only last up to 120 days however, Congress may convert them into an ordinary law which may last forever.

throwawaysea 5y ago

This reminds of when Angela Merkel and other European leaders criticized American big tech companies that all deplatformed Donald Trump (https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problematic-and-perplexing-european-leaders-side-with-trump-over-twitter-ban/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problemat...). Apart from the vague reasons Twitter gave for their ban like Trump not attending Biden’s inauguration (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), it was a move that highlighted that tech companies are indeed as powerful as governments and must be treated as such, with regulation. For international leaders it highlighted the risks to their own nations due to foreign interference. Although in the US we often think of foreign interference as only something done by other countries like Russia, the reality is that Twitter or other companies modifying information flow across societies is explicitly foreign interference. Finally, it’s also worth considering big tech’s censorship/moderation as equivalent to campaign contributions made in kind. Banning one party and not another or altering the exposure of some perspective is political campaigning. Actions taken to censor politicians or political views should be subject to election funding controls and laws. All this is to say that despite all my grievances with the Bolsonaro government, I think this particular move to ensure online freedom of speech is justified. Large monopolist technology companies with government-scale power and unregulated privately owned public town squares are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society.

nunobrito 5y ago
Indeed censoring a democratically elected president of a nation had chilling effects in Europe. We remember our not-so-long-ago past with censorship. Social networks are not judges. Governments are not always right. For decades, most of the online world has lived with freedom to express themselves. I'm siding with Brazil on this one. Online freedom matters.

ALittleLight 5y ago

"The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures." This is interesting. I assume they're talking about Ivermectin, which I believe is part of Brazil's official medical strategy and response to covid[1]. American health authorities issue guidance that conflicts with Brazilian health authorities and so American social media companies censor Brazilians? I wonder if there is a group at Google that reaches a position based on research or if they're just taking guidance from authorities. 1 -https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/15/1006198151/covid-pseudoscience-is-choking-brazil https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/06/15/1006198...

pvaldes 5y ago
If Bolsonaro and his cronies were committing a crime [1] wouldn't be removing those videos the same as removing evidence? [1] Not a lawyer, but I bet that I'm not the only human thinking that promoting disinformation and taking bath masses in the middle of a pandemy should count as criminal activity. Is not much different as deliberately giving weapons to toddlers. After more than 580.000 victims and 20 millions of brazilians infected, they can't claim lack of knowledge about the consequences of their acts anymore.
- boibombeiro 5y ago
  His posts wasn't removed. They were hidden behind a disclaimer, like NSFW content.
tim333 5y ago
"pills such as the lice medication ivermectin, the antimalarial chloroquine and popular antibiotic azithromycin as well as anticoagulants, painkillers and a set of vitamins" They seem to be using a variety of unproven stuff.
boibombeiro 5y ago
The first removed posts were videos of him visiting cities that were in lockdown, gathering crowds and asking people to deobey the state law and leave their houses. He didn't believe covid was real back them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mc32 5y ago

These media companies need to have some accountability somewhere. The logical way is either via the UN (which is too bureaucratic) or devolve it to each nation. The way things work now is in a way imperialistic. They impose their point of view and culture on everyone even when it goes against what is acceptable locally. People used to call this cultural imperialism but now many regard it as a normal transformation as we have a more globalized world… but many only agree with this pint of view only because they agree with the media and not because they agree in principle. The way to test this is to imagine social media instead amplified and exported a different set of values.