4 ms·

Musk challenges Brazil's order to block certain X accounts

34 points by 1oooqooq 3y ago

bediger4000 3y ago
Do we know which accounts are in question?
- 1oooqooq 3y ago
  accounts that were blocked after due process, related to the 8 January 2023. Which might end up with the former president jailed. In Brazil law you can only silence someone if it is related to investigations, hate and unbased (opinion) defamatory speech. January 8th is Brazil's January 6th. Former Brazil president was a bizarre world trump, with all the scandals happening later but in a similar way and same order. Elected from a Bannon campaign. Even the failure to second term reelection. everything the same but a little later. so bizarre.
  - dmitrygr 3y ago
    There is no such thing as a legitimate shutting-up of someone, among civilized humans. A judge issuing a gag order (or any equivalent of it) is by definition uncivilized, as is any law that allows it, and any people that put up with it. Please read article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; > this right includes freedom to hold opinions without > interference and to seek, receive and impart information and > ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Civilized adult humans handle disagreement and anything they find abhorrent with speech and explanations of their own, instead of gagging others. At least they used to, when they existed...
    - delfinom 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - addicted 3y ago
      I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet. I’m being oppressed!
      - DataDive 3y ago
        > I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet. In my reading it is exactly the other way around, no? You sent something to NYT they published it and now they are not allowed to publish anything from you, and not because what new content is.The ban is because you wrote it. And if they do publish something you wrote they are criminally negligent.
    - bediger4000 3y ago
      I'm going to have to disagree here. Deliberate falsehoods are often silenced or censored, particularly if the accusations are very damaging. The USA has slander and libel laws, the UK has similar. I'm positive Brazil has them. Courts and due process exist to do this silencing.
      - lobocinza 3y ago
        Except due process wasn't followed.
    - GuB-42 3y ago
      But consider article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Defamation is such an attack, and something has to be done to protect them. Also consider article 30 "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." The right to free speech shouldn't be interpreted as the right to infringe on the rights of others, including attack upon their honor and reputation.
      - Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago
        Hey man you'd be surprised how much they stretch the "honour" part in Brazil. There have been multiple accounts of comedians, podcasters, and YouTubers being fined or even arrested because of their opinions or jokes. Often these jokes wouldn't even target anyone in particular. It's batshit crazy.
    - namaria 3y ago
      The Brazilian courts are not gagging or silencing these individuals. They are merely revoking their privilege to access what amounts to broadcast. Access to broadcasting platforms has always been heavily regulated everywhere, and losing access after repeated spread of inflammatory falsehoods is not by any stretch of imagination "shutting someone up".
      - Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago
        Come on, read what you just wrote. Freedom of broadcast? They're not exactly on state-sponsored TV. What does the government have to do with what shows up on social media? In a country with actual freedom you'd have riots on the street.
        namaria 3y ago
        Broadcast != state sponsored TV. Social media is a regulated platform. In a <blank> you can project whatever fantasy you wish.
        lobocinza 3y ago
        You're creating a fantasy. Social media platforms aren't like radio or TV broadcasting and don't require a license to operate.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > after due process Were they afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision? > January 8th is Brazil's January 6th. Which means two countries had two very similar incidents that are somehow entirely unrelated, or this is being used as a narrative device for the purposes of disenfranchising literally half these countries voters. > so bizarre. Or just a manipulated outcome.
mrkramer 3y ago
Challenging Supreme Court is not a good idea. Let's see what happens next.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Brazil could direct in country ISPs to null route X bound Internet traffic I assume, failing all other recourse. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/itd-crazy-easy-brazil-block-web-right-now/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/itd-crazy-easy-brazil-block-we... https://thenextweb.com/news/brazil-blocked-whatsapp https://thenextweb.com/news/brazil-blocked-whatsapp
  - consumer451 3y ago
    A Brazilian reaction to Musk saying "use a VPN," please note Bluesky's translate function. https://bsky.app/profile/boiadeiro.bsky.social/post/3kpl4ks6jpt2e https://bsky.app/profile/boiadeiro.bsky.social/post/3kpl4ks6... For context, >tens of thousands of Brazilians have flooded Bluesky since yesterday. https://bsky.app/profile/emilyliu.me/post/3kpln3uormk2q https://bsky.app/profile/emilyliu.me/post/3kpln3uormk2q
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Here's a taste of things to come. Last year Google engaged in a little campaign against their proposed "fake news" law. It amounted to putting a small link on their home page. For that most grievous crime of "abuse of market power", these judges censored the company by ordering it to take it down or face totally arbitrary fines of about 200kUSD per hour. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/brazil-judge-orders-google-ceo-to-testify-over-fake-news-bill https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/brazil-ju... https://archive.is/EdoqQ https://archive.is/EdoqQ Then the elected politicians rejected that law and these same judges rammed it down our throats anyway via "electoral court resolutions".
ptkanchi 3y ago
Situations sounds bonkers. Arresting the employees for something the employer is doing is absolutely ridiculous.
justinclift 3y ago
Looks like Brazil and the US have an extradition treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit... Even so, in the US being rich seems to triumph over everything else so it's unlikely to matter.
- forinti 3y ago
  Neither country extradites its own citizens.
consumer451 3y ago
> Twitter doesn’t have a choice but to obey local governments. If we don’t obey local government laws, we will get shut down - Elon Musk (2023) What is it exactly that's different in this case? https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/twitter-has-no-choice-but-to-obey-local-laws-in-every-country-elon-musk-123062101371_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/twitt...
- toofy 3y ago
  i think we’ve seen repeatedly that his reasoning for loudly preaching to us all about “free speech” was never genuine or even realistic. the first clue was the “public square” argument. a privately owned space by literal definition can not be public. the second clue was obvious to anyone who has ran a large online community or worked in real world gathering spaces: it’s impossible to allow all behaviors yet expect people to want to spend their time visiting. he has shown his disingenuousness repeatedly.
- hndamien 3y ago
  The difference is the claim that the requests violate Brazilian law. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776989005848207503?s=46 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776989005848207503?s=46
  - consumer451 3y ago
    What role does Elon Musk have in the Brazilian judiciary?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hndamien 3y ago
      His claim is that X must abide by the law in each country it operates. So if an order is deemed to be in violation of the law of the country, that would be relevant. I presume it is X lawyers in the country of question (Or lawyers knowledgeable about that) make the adjudication.
jakeogh 3y ago
That's an impressive crowd: https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1777016250935226399 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1777016250935226399
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

34 points by 1oooqooq 3y ago

bediger4000 3y ago

Do we know which accounts are in question?

1oooqooq 3y ago
accounts that were blocked after due process, related to the 8 January 2023. Which might end up with the former president jailed. In Brazil law you can only silence someone if it is related to investigations, hate and unbased (opinion) defamatory speech. January 8th is Brazil's January 6th. Former Brazil president was a bizarre world trump, with all the scandals happening later but in a similar way and same order. Elected from a Bannon campaign. Even the failure to second term reelection. everything the same but a little later. so bizarre.
- dmitrygr 3y ago
  There is no such thing as a legitimate shutting-up of someone, among civilized humans. A judge issuing a gag order (or any equivalent of it) is by definition uncivilized, as is any law that allows it, and any people that put up with it. Please read article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; > this right includes freedom to hold opinions without > interference and to seek, receive and impart information and > ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Civilized adult humans handle disagreement and anything they find abhorrent with speech and explanations of their own, instead of gagging others. At least they used to, when they existed...
  - delfinom 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - addicted 3y ago
    I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet. I’m being oppressed!
    - DataDive 3y ago
      > I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet. In my reading it is exactly the other way around, no? You sent something to NYT they published it and now they are not allowed to publish anything from you, and not because what new content is.The ban is because you wrote it. And if they do publish something you wrote they are criminally negligent.
  - bediger4000 3y ago
    I'm going to have to disagree here. Deliberate falsehoods are often silenced or censored, particularly if the accusations are very damaging. The USA has slander and libel laws, the UK has similar. I'm positive Brazil has them. Courts and due process exist to do this silencing.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      Except due process wasn't followed.
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    But consider article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Defamation is such an attack, and something has to be done to protect them. Also consider article 30 "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." The right to free speech shouldn't be interpreted as the right to infringe on the rights of others, including attack upon their honor and reputation.
    - Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago
      Hey man you'd be surprised how much they stretch the "honour" part in Brazil. There have been multiple accounts of comedians, podcasters, and YouTubers being fined or even arrested because of their opinions or jokes. Often these jokes wouldn't even target anyone in particular. It's batshit crazy.
  - namaria 3y ago
    The Brazilian courts are not gagging or silencing these individuals. They are merely revoking their privilege to access what amounts to broadcast. Access to broadcasting platforms has always been heavily regulated everywhere, and losing access after repeated spread of inflammatory falsehoods is not by any stretch of imagination "shutting someone up".
    - Pedro_Ribeiro 3y ago
      Come on, read what you just wrote. Freedom of broadcast? They're not exactly on state-sponsored TV. What does the government have to do with what shows up on social media? In a country with actual freedom you'd have riots on the street.
      - namaria 3y ago
        Broadcast != state sponsored TV. Social media is a regulated platform. In a <blank> you can project whatever fantasy you wish.
        lobocinza 3y ago
        You're creating a fantasy. Social media platforms aren't like radio or TV broadcasting and don't require a license to operate.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > after due process Were they afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision? > January 8th is Brazil's January 6th. Which means two countries had two very similar incidents that are somehow entirely unrelated, or this is being used as a narrative device for the purposes of disenfranchising literally half these countries voters. > so bizarre. Or just a manipulated outcome.

mrkramer 3y ago

Challenging Supreme Court is not a good idea. Let's see what happens next.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Brazil could direct in country ISPs to null route X bound Internet traffic I assume, failing all other recourse. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/itd-crazy-easy-brazil-block-web-right-now/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/itd-crazy-easy-brazil-block-we... https://thenextweb.com/news/brazil-blocked-whatsapp https://thenextweb.com/news/brazil-blocked-whatsapp
- consumer451 3y ago
  A Brazilian reaction to Musk saying "use a VPN," please note Bluesky's translate function. https://bsky.app/profile/boiadeiro.bsky.social/post/3kpl4ks6jpt2e https://bsky.app/profile/boiadeiro.bsky.social/post/3kpl4ks6... For context, >tens of thousands of Brazilians have flooded Bluesky since yesterday. https://bsky.app/profile/emilyliu.me/post/3kpln3uormk2q https://bsky.app/profile/emilyliu.me/post/3kpln3uormk2q
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Here's a taste of things to come. Last year Google engaged in a little campaign against their proposed "fake news" law. It amounted to putting a small link on their home page. For that most grievous crime of "abuse of market power", these judges censored the company by ordering it to take it down or face totally arbitrary fines of about 200kUSD per hour. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/brazil-judge-orders-google-ceo-to-testify-over-fake-news-bill https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/brazil-ju... https://archive.is/EdoqQ https://archive.is/EdoqQ Then the elected politicians rejected that law and these same judges rammed it down our throats anyway via "electoral court resolutions".

ptkanchi 3y ago

Situations sounds bonkers. Arresting the employees for something the employer is doing is absolutely ridiculous.

justinclift 3y ago

Looks like Brazil and the US have an extradition treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit... Even so, in the US being rich seems to triumph over everything else so it's unlikely to matter.

forinti 3y ago
Neither country extradites its own citizens.

consumer451 3y ago

> Twitter doesn’t have a choice but to obey local governments. If we don’t obey local government laws, we will get shut down - Elon Musk (2023) What is it exactly that's different in this case? https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/twitter-has-no-choice-but-to-obey-local-laws-in-every-country-elon-musk-123062101371_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/twitt...

toofy 3y ago
i think we’ve seen repeatedly that his reasoning for loudly preaching to us all about “free speech” was never genuine or even realistic. the first clue was the “public square” argument. a privately owned space by literal definition can not be public. the second clue was obvious to anyone who has ran a large online community or worked in real world gathering spaces: it’s impossible to allow all behaviors yet expect people to want to spend their time visiting. he has shown his disingenuousness repeatedly.
hndamien 3y ago
The difference is the claim that the requests violate Brazilian law. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776989005848207503?s=46 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776989005848207503?s=46
- consumer451 3y ago
  What role does Elon Musk have in the Brazilian judiciary?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hndamien 3y ago
    His claim is that X must abide by the law in each country it operates. So if an order is deemed to be in violation of the law of the country, that would be relevant. I presume it is X lawyers in the country of question (Or lawyers knowledgeable about that) make the adjudication.

jakeogh 3y ago

That's an impressive crowd: https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1777016250935226399 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1777016250935226399

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]