11 ms·

Endless Censorship Demands from Brazil

illusive4080 3y ago
2 hours, no reason given, order of confidentiality? Straight up abuse of power.
justinclift 3y ago
Mirror: https://twiiit.com/ggreenwald/status/1777392222851240334 https://twiiit.com/ggreenwald/status/1777392222851240334 That bounces to a random Nitter instance (there are a few still working), to show the subsequent posts and replies. The next post in the series (it comes from ggreenwald as well) also seems relevant: Last year, we received one of the censorship orders sent by Moraes. This was *after* the 2022 election and thus after these powers expired. You can see: they are done with no notice to those banned, and with a requirement that the order be kept secret: • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDDYxWYAY9kDx.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDDYxWYAY9k... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDE0BWAAEBehX.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDE0BWAAEBe... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDGF7XkAECcKh.png https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDGF7XkAECc... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDG1VXgAAJ2pC.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDG1VXgAAJ2...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  Brazilian law allows content to be removed online for reasons of investigation, hate speech or unbased defamation. And this was always the case. Moreover, recent laws tried to control the amount of fake news trying to manipulate the elections. The Brazilian electoral laws forbid spending in secret for the purpose of buying or making propaganda for electoral campaign and also regulate what is allowed in the elections. Before the new laws, manipulating social media with lots of fake accounts spreading fake news was a loophole that was being explored by the far right. What they are calling "censorship" is just the application of law.
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    > Before the new laws, manipulating social media with lots of fake accounts spreading fake news was a loophole that was being explored by the far right. The left also does that. Their goals is to monopolize and not combat fake news.
    - vitorgrs 3y ago
      Yes, and the left already got banned from TV ads when that happened during the election. In my state, former Governor and candidate Requião (PT, left) said that the current governor (Ratinho Jr, PSD, Right-wing) didn't give give teachers a salary increase. It was a lie. He was banned from TV ads for almost two weeks because he lied.
      - lobocinza 3y ago
        I couldn't find any news regarding this ban. Even if true it looks like an exception rather than the rule. What makes Ratinho Jr right-wing? PSD is the the "Social Democractic" Party, it's center and aligned to whoever is in power.
        vitorgrs 3y ago
        Ratinho Jr fully supports Bolsonaro. And it's heavily invested in military schools and even banned some books from schools. Very conservative. The party is indeed center, but he is right-wing. Well, just Brazilian things. Here the news: https://contraponto.jor.br/campanha-de-requiao-nao-tera-mais-insercoes-no-radio-e-tv/ https://contraponto.jor.br/campanha-de-requiao-nao-tera-mais... https://www.bemparana.com.br/publicacao/blogs/politicaemdebate/em-direito-de-resposta-ratinho-jr-desmente-requiao-sobre-reajuste-de-professores/ https://www.bemparana.com.br/publicacao/blogs/politicaemdeba...
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        That's also censorship. He should not be silenced just because he lied. People should recognize him as a liar and stop trusting what he says instead.
Dig1t 3y ago
>Given 2 hours to suspend an account or face massive fines. >Being given demands to suspend sitting members of parliament and major journalists, and moreover we could not tell them that this was at the behest of the Alexandre Moraes [the judge they are discussing] and we had to pretend it was due to our rules of service. That was the final straw and we said no.
ants_everywhere 3y ago
[flagged]
- ekianjo 3y ago
  what does it say about Brazil's censorship?
  - bparsons 3y ago
    Sovereign nations are under no obligation to allow foreign governments to flood their communications systems with propaganda and harmful disinformation. Imagine if during during the cold war, the Soviet Union was permitted to flood NBC, ABC and half the newspapers in the US with demonstrably false and harmful political information. What would a reasonable public policy response to this be?
- the_af 3y ago
  That's a pretty bad and random comment of a kind I didn't expect here. What does this have to do with anything? Attack the argument.
  - chowells 3y ago
    When the person making the argument has a history of acting in bad faith, that's relevant to the argument.
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      no that is just called ad hominem
      - arp242 3y ago
        No one wakes up every day with a clean slate, having forgotten everyone who lied and cheated to them in the past. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Journalistic reporting depends on some degree of trust. I can't go verify everything I read – I don't have the time, means, or interest. No one does that. I feel that in the past Greenwald has demonstrated to be unreliable because he views the world too much through an ideological lens. Everyone does that with certain outlets and people.
brcmthrowaway 3y ago
[flagged]
- lvass 3y ago
  Probably in order to officially leave the country without causing too much bewilderment. Brazil has very low CPM (~1/10 of US), specially in twitter, high bandwidth cost (~17x of US in 2016) and the laws and justice system imposes a lot of obligations and fines.
- notatoad 3y ago
  Elon is slowly learning why all the policies that twitter used to have existed. In this case, twitter previously used to have clear content policies and would take down content that violated their own policies, and governments would generally let twitter do content moderation in accordance with twitter's own policies, because that was predictable and manageable. In the name of free speech, Elon decided that twitter would not take down content unless it was illegal. The brazilian government has realized that twitter has effectively delegated their content policy to the government, and is taking advantage of that for their own gain. Elon does not like this.
  - andrenth 3y ago
    This is not completely factual. As was demonstrated by Twitter Files Brazil, censorship requests by the judiciary were happening well before Elon bought Twitter.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  Probably upset Bolsonaro didn’t get reelected.
- h3rsko 3y ago
  Just read the Twitter thread. It's egregious stuff.
cjk2 3y ago
Is there a trustworthy actor on either side here?
- bluepizza 3y ago
  Not really. Brazilian courts were always highly political - its members are appointed by presidents, after all. The situation has become more volatile recently, due to the polarised politics. Courts should be a tad more neutral than they are being right now. The people being investigated, and the journalist reporting it, are well known bad faith misinformation spreaders. But it is not up to a judge to find a reason to stop them. They need to be investigated and prosecuted, not banned from a couple of non Brazilian platforms.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Your comment makes sound points that equally apply to the current US Supreme Court.
    - frozenlettuce 3y ago
      the difference is that no SCOTUS member is opening inquiries in processes where they are the prosecutor, victim, and judge at the same time. Fun fact: Brazil's Supreme Court can legally do that _if a crime occurs in the Court's dependencies_... well, they ruled that as the Court has Internet, and people are hurting their honor there... then it is as if the crime occurred inside the Court
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
jsheard 3y ago
Will this anti-censorship stance extend to every government that routinely demands Twitter hide content they find inconvenient, or just the governments that Elon Musk doesn't want to cooperate with? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accuse...
- p_j_w 3y ago
  He will, of course, let it go if the government is right wing.
joegibbs 3y ago
Do we need to rethink the idea of global social media platforms? Maybe even the idea of a global internet. If countries like Brazil or India want to have everything censored then perhaps western companies should simply withdraw their main platform and create some subsidiary application solely for people within each of those countries.
- rileymat2 3y ago
  This is a very complicated issue, because enabling some censorship is harmful in itself.
- andrenth 3y ago
  “Countries” do not want censorship. Corrupt bureaucrats in power do.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Essentially corrupt bureaucrats are the countries. They might have to occasionally follow whims of elected representatives, which the populous is forced to vote and select from small pool.
    - andrenth 3y ago
      I think putting it that way could lead someone to believe a country’s population agrees with the actions of the managerial elite. But yes, I agree with the essence of the idea, though I think it’s clearer to say they own or run the country.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      No, they're not. These judges do not represent me. I did not vote for them at all. Actually not a single person did.
      - lobocinza 3y ago
        They are. Brazil isn't a democracy. There is a non-elected elite with absolute power. They can indict, investigate, prosecute and condemn anyone at their whim. Elected representatives aren't immune (e.g. Deltan Dallagnol, Sergio Moro). They can nullify and change laws made by elected representatives. They can create new laws out of thin air. They can uncondemn criminals.
diego_moita 3y ago
[flagged]
- bluenomatterwho 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - diego_moita 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bluenomatterwho 3y ago
      You've never heard of BLM or Antifa or 'mostly peaceful but fiery' arsons I take it. I'm not surprised if there was some outlier activity (again, instigation of the that was largely the point). But I watched it live, and there is plenty of footage still being released (why hide it?). Officers were indeed taking pictures, etc. All I'm asking for is sanity, but clearly partisanship is more important. Sad day.
    - hackable_sand 3y ago
      Don't feed the trolls.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Flag washing defecating on desks? More than 2,000 rioters entered the building, with many vandalizing and looting, including the offices of then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Congress members. Rioters also assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters, and attempted to capture and harm lawmakers. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... Just "a lot of old folks walking within the ropes while being guided by Capitol Police" ? Nothing else happened there?
    - bluenomatterwho 3y ago
      [flagged]
hexage1814 3y ago
Glad to see that the world is finally starting to notice Brazil has become a judicial dictatorship.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hagbard_c 3y ago
[flagged]
- tumsfestival 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bluenomatterwho 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - hexage1814 3y ago
    [flagged]
lvass 3y ago
@dang it looks like some political group are clicking on the flag button. Without moderation it's probably for the best, political divisiveness doesn't belong here, but I fail to see how this story is divisive except perhaps the fact it's related to a judge appointed by a president. Consider unflagging it and delete/warn/ban overly political divisive comments.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  >I fail to see how this story is divisive Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.
  - lvass 3y ago
    Well, it is already unflagged. I don't follow your logic here though, the owner of Twitter isn't an adequate source of judicial orders received by twitter? What's wrong with Greenwald? Are you implying they collided to report something that did not happen? Why would that make sense? If that was the case, that itself would be news, not something to just flag and ignore.
    - unclebucknasty 3y ago
      Your question was WRT why some people would find the article politically divisive.
  - hexage1814 3y ago
    >Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk. Honestly, you could say the same thing about the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, DW, etc or, hell, even Brazil's Supreme Court who will say “everything is working just fine”, despite the increasing censorship happening in the country that they have been taking part. Everyone has some narrative and bias. The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with. And when I'm reading the Times, I'm listening to some sort of "unfiltered truth". Sure, Musk might have other interests with this other than defending freedom of speech in Brazil. But the same can be said about Moraes, the Brazilian judge censoring journalists who criticize him left and right, going as far as trying to extradite them (and failing on that btw), blocking their profiles on social media, sure as hell isn't interested in "defend the rule of law" or whatever his official excuse is.
blastonico 3y ago
Brazil is under a judiciary kind of government regime, having that Alexandre Moreas as their supreme leader. They're hostile to high tech companies and entrepreneurs, but ok with the organized crime.
unclebucknasty 3y ago
Is this the part where — in order to avoid being downloaded or flagged — everyone continues to pretend that Musk really is a "free speech absolutist", instead of acknowledging a clear and distinct pattern of what he enforces, and against whom?
- MrYellowP 3y ago
  Well ... go on, don't keep it to yourself.
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    >don't keep it to yourself It's not exactly a secret. See, for example, censorship in Turkey and India. In general, he's overwhelmingly approved censorship requests from authoritarian governments. So much for "free speech absolutism". In general, Musk himself regularly shouts his biases at the top of his lungs, and has applied selective enforcement of Twitter's own TOS. His selectivity can be easily aligned with his biases.
  - walthamstow 3y ago
    He'll censor anything on behalf of Saudi Arabia or India, but complains loudly when it's Brazil. Why the double standard? He wants a pliable, aligned government in Brazil so he's using his megaphone to try to achieve that.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    Oh dear, is your web browser broken? It should be trivial to search for detailed critiques, with terms like "Musk free speech hypocrisy", ex: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-musk-hypocrite-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m... https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/free-speech-experts-realizing-just-how-big-a-free-speech-hypocrite-elon-is/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/free-speech-experts-real...
- barrysteve 3y ago
  He does it to individuals and says as such in interviews. You have free speech, but not free reach. Twitter will limit the number of eyeballs that see your content if Twitter doesn't like what you have to say.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related: Musk challenges Brazil's order to block certain X accounts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39962568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39962568
- r721 3y ago
  Also related: >Brazil threatens to regulate social media after clash with Elon Musk https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39963060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39963060 >Brazil judge opens inquiry into Musk for obstruction involving X https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39965454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39965454 >Brazil Supreme Court orders investigation of Elon Musk over fake news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39967203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39967203
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Government also threatened to "review" its contracts with Starlink. You'd think they have cellphone towers covering the entire amazon.
secondary_op 3y ago
[flagged]
- bad_username 3y ago
  > Musk decided to comply. Even self proclaimed free speech absolutist from the land of free speech can not fight this. He has always been explicit in saying that he will protect _legal_ speech and would remove _illegal_ content. He always conceded that relevant laws can and will change, and finds this an acceptable and democratic way to moderate public discourse.
  - thiagoharry 3y ago
    Except that the contents banned in Brazil were illegal content. Brazilian law allows content to be removed online for reasons of investigation, hate speech or unbased defamation. The Brazilian electoral laws forbids spending in secret for the purpose of buying or making propaganda for electoral campaign and also regulate what is allowed in the elections. For example: spending to propagate fake news to manipulate elections is not allowed.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Fake news... Such as the fact Lula is a socialist and a communist? I have videos of him calling himself a socialist, that should be good enough proof for anyone. Yet the judges censored it as fake news before election day. Care to comment on that? How about the fact he appointed a communist to the supreme court to act as a judge? I believe his words were something along the lines of "we finally have a communist in the supreme court". You're gonna gaslight me by claiming that's fake? Maybe AI generated? Some guy asked this new judge point blank if he was a communist, I remember his reply was "thank god", as in, absolutely. But according to the authorities it's all a conspiracy theory and there is no communism anywhere in this nation, right? It's all fake. Fake news... Such as the fact Lula is friends with the Venezuelan dictator? You know, the guy the US charged with narco-terrorism? Fake news, right? Lula wouldn't be so brazen as to literally roll out the red carpet for this guy immediately after the election, would he? He totally did though. Must have been seeing things I guess. Yeah that must be it. I literally hallucinated the entire episode. Fake news... Such as the fact Lula was implicated in, convicted of and incarcerated for the biggest corruption scandal in the history of this country? And also the fact these judges just threw out the whole case on some minor technicality? Pulled him straight out of jail just in time for the election? You're gonna tell me that I'm delusional, that I'm misremembering things? The way I see it, literally everything they censored as "fake" turned out to be true in the end. So what's the penalty for the truth ministers when they turn out to be wrong? Maybe they should sign the order for their own arrests? Are they even allowed to be wrong? Does reality have to bend and conform until they're right? Maybe they'll redefine pi as 5 and arrest the mathematicians who prove then wrong? I wouldn't even be surprised. Not to mention the fact Lula and his communists get constantly fact checked on Twitter/X. Every other day I run into some hilarious presidential tweet saying some dumb thing and the fact checking proving the opposite with source links. Latest episode was some official claiming that TikTok had already been banned in the US. So where's the censorship for these guys? Why hasn't the president been arrested for spreading fake news yet? ... Oh I see it now. That's why they hate Twitter/X so much.
derelicta 3y ago
Censorship is a tool. One can wield it appropriately, or grossely misuse it.
soapdog 3y ago
Tired of Musk fanboi’s conflicting hate speech and disinformation with freedom. Tired of North Americans and Europeans that have zero context about nuances of Brazilian recent history and struggles, thinking their shallow opinions and misconceptions should be accepted as facts. Really tired of tech bros that think everything that is against their ability to troll is censorship.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  Tired of countries who think they get to impose their standards on American social media companies (because they cannot make their own) throwing tantrums that they will act in line with American values. You think you have a right to regulate what someone can and cannot say - America does not. Block twitter and make your own then.
  - thiagoharry 3y ago
    > Tired of countries who think they get to impose their standards on American social media companies Being an American social media do not exempts you from following the law in the countries where you operate. They do not carry with them to that countries the jurisdiction of American laws.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Oh I'm sure the americans will quickly get sick of this unelected brazilian judge, a literal nobody from some barbaric communist country, thinking he can whimsically censor and fine their corporations. In fact I'm counting on it. I hope this guy pisses the americans off so much they actually apply sanctions to my own country. Not the first time he does it either. Last year Google engaged in a little campaign against their proposed "fake news" law, they just added a little link to their home page. These judges censored Google: 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 They essentially threatened to steal from the american economy an average software developer's yearly salary every hour if their demands were not met. Their unconstitutional demands, by the way. Brazilian constitution says censorship is illegal. And these are the guys whose literal job is to apply that constitution. Think about it. Google could have hired one person from here for every hour of "disobedience". Doesn't that piss you off? I hope it does. I hope it gets someone to write something to their representatives.

2 hours, no reason given, order of confidentiality? Straight up abuse of power.

Mirror: https://twiiit.com/ggreenwald/status/1777392222851240334 https://twiiit.com/ggreenwald/status/1777392222851240334 That bounces to a random Nitter instance (there are a few still working), to show the subsequent posts and replies. The next post in the series (it comes from ggreenwald as well) also seems relevant: Last year, we received one of the censorship orders sent by Moraes. This was *after* the 2022 election and thus after these powers expired. You can see: they are done with no notice to those banned, and with a requirement that the order be kept secret: • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDDYxWYAY9kDx.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDDYxWYAY9k... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDE0BWAAEBehX.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDE0BWAAEBe... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDGF7XkAECcKh.png https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDGF7XkAECc... • https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDG1VXgAAJ2pC.jpg https://nitter.privacydev.net/pic/orig/media%2FFmaDG1VXgAAJ2...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thiagoharry 3y ago
Brazilian law allows content to be removed online for reasons of investigation, hate speech or unbased defamation. And this was always the case. Moreover, recent laws tried to control the amount of fake news trying to manipulate the elections. The Brazilian electoral laws forbid spending in secret for the purpose of buying or making propaganda for electoral campaign and also regulate what is allowed in the elections. Before the new laws, manipulating social media with lots of fake accounts spreading fake news was a loophole that was being explored by the far right. What they are calling "censorship" is just the application of law.
- lobocinza 3y ago
  > Before the new laws, manipulating social media with lots of fake accounts spreading fake news was a loophole that was being explored by the far right. The left also does that. Their goals is to monopolize and not combat fake news.
  - vitorgrs 3y ago
    Yes, and the left already got banned from TV ads when that happened during the election. In my state, former Governor and candidate Requião (PT, left) said that the current governor (Ratinho Jr, PSD, Right-wing) didn't give give teachers a salary increase. It was a lie. He was banned from TV ads for almost two weeks because he lied.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      I couldn't find any news regarding this ban. Even if true it looks like an exception rather than the rule. What makes Ratinho Jr right-wing? PSD is the the "Social Democractic" Party, it's center and aligned to whoever is in power.
      - vitorgrs 3y ago
        Ratinho Jr fully supports Bolsonaro. And it's heavily invested in military schools and even banned some books from schools. Very conservative. The party is indeed center, but he is right-wing. Well, just Brazilian things. Here the news: https://contraponto.jor.br/campanha-de-requiao-nao-tera-mais-insercoes-no-radio-e-tv/ https://contraponto.jor.br/campanha-de-requiao-nao-tera-mais... https://www.bemparana.com.br/publicacao/blogs/politicaemdebate/em-direito-de-resposta-ratinho-jr-desmente-requiao-sobre-reajuste-de-professores/ https://www.bemparana.com.br/publicacao/blogs/politicaemdeba...
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      That's also censorship. He should not be silenced just because he lied. People should recognize him as a liar and stop trusting what he says instead.

Dig1t 3y ago

>Given 2 hours to suspend an account or face massive fines. >Being given demands to suspend sitting members of parliament and major journalists, and moreover we could not tell them that this was at the behest of the Alexandre Moraes [the judge they are discussing] and we had to pretend it was due to our rules of service. That was the final straw and we said no.

ants_everywhere 3y ago

[flagged]

ekianjo 3y ago
what does it say about Brazil's censorship?
- bparsons 3y ago
  Sovereign nations are under no obligation to allow foreign governments to flood their communications systems with propaganda and harmful disinformation. Imagine if during during the cold war, the Soviet Union was permitted to flood NBC, ABC and half the newspapers in the US with demonstrably false and harmful political information. What would a reasonable public policy response to this be?
the_af 3y ago
That's a pretty bad and random comment of a kind I didn't expect here. What does this have to do with anything? Attack the argument.
- chowells 3y ago
  When the person making the argument has a history of acting in bad faith, that's relevant to the argument.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    no that is just called ad hominem
    - arp242 3y ago
      No one wakes up every day with a clean slate, having forgotten everyone who lied and cheated to them in the past. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... Journalistic reporting depends on some degree of trust. I can't go verify everything I read – I don't have the time, means, or interest. No one does that. I feel that in the past Greenwald has demonstrated to be unreliable because he views the world too much through an ideological lens. Everyone does that with certain outlets and people.

brcmthrowaway 3y ago

[flagged]

lvass 3y ago
Probably in order to officially leave the country without causing too much bewilderment. Brazil has very low CPM (~1/10 of US), specially in twitter, high bandwidth cost (~17x of US in 2016) and the laws and justice system imposes a lot of obligations and fines.
notatoad 3y ago
Elon is slowly learning why all the policies that twitter used to have existed. In this case, twitter previously used to have clear content policies and would take down content that violated their own policies, and governments would generally let twitter do content moderation in accordance with twitter's own policies, because that was predictable and manageable. In the name of free speech, Elon decided that twitter would not take down content unless it was illegal. The brazilian government has realized that twitter has effectively delegated their content policy to the government, and is taking advantage of that for their own gain. Elon does not like this.
- andrenth 3y ago
  This is not completely factual. As was demonstrated by Twitter Files Brazil, censorship requests by the judiciary were happening well before Elon bought Twitter.
p_j_w 3y ago
Probably upset Bolsonaro didn’t get reelected.
h3rsko 3y ago
Just read the Twitter thread. It's egregious stuff.

cjk2 3y ago

Is there a trustworthy actor on either side here?

bluepizza 3y ago
Not really. Brazilian courts were always highly political - its members are appointed by presidents, after all. The situation has become more volatile recently, due to the polarised politics. Courts should be a tad more neutral than they are being right now. The people being investigated, and the journalist reporting it, are well known bad faith misinformation spreaders. But it is not up to a judge to find a reason to stop them. They need to be investigated and prosecuted, not banned from a couple of non Brazilian platforms.
- defrost 3y ago
  Your comment makes sound points that equally apply to the current US Supreme Court.
  - frozenlettuce 3y ago
    the difference is that no SCOTUS member is opening inquiries in processes where they are the prosecutor, victim, and judge at the same time. Fun fact: Brazil's Supreme Court can legally do that _if a crime occurs in the Court's dependencies_... well, they ruled that as the Court has Internet, and people are hurting their honor there... then it is as if the crime occurred inside the Court
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

jsheard 3y ago

Will this anti-censorship stance extend to every government that routinely demands Twitter hide content they find inconvenient, or just the governments that Elon Musk doesn't want to cooperate with? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accuse...

p_j_w 3y ago
He will, of course, let it go if the government is right wing.

joegibbs 3y ago

Do we need to rethink the idea of global social media platforms? Maybe even the idea of a global internet. If countries like Brazil or India want to have everything censored then perhaps western companies should simply withdraw their main platform and create some subsidiary application solely for people within each of those countries.

rileymat2 3y ago
This is a very complicated issue, because enabling some censorship is harmful in itself.
andrenth 3y ago
“Countries” do not want censorship. Corrupt bureaucrats in power do.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Essentially corrupt bureaucrats are the countries. They might have to occasionally follow whims of elected representatives, which the populous is forced to vote and select from small pool.
  - andrenth 3y ago
    I think putting it that way could lead someone to believe a country’s population agrees with the actions of the managerial elite. But yes, I agree with the essence of the idea, though I think it’s clearer to say they own or run the country.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    No, they're not. These judges do not represent me. I did not vote for them at all. Actually not a single person did.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      They are. Brazil isn't a democracy. There is a non-elected elite with absolute power. They can indict, investigate, prosecute and condemn anyone at their whim. Elected representatives aren't immune (e.g. Deltan Dallagnol, Sergio Moro). They can nullify and change laws made by elected representatives. They can create new laws out of thin air. They can uncondemn criminals.

diego_moita 3y ago

[flagged]

bluenomatterwho 3y ago
[flagged]
- diego_moita 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bluenomatterwho 3y ago
    You've never heard of BLM or Antifa or 'mostly peaceful but fiery' arsons I take it. I'm not surprised if there was some outlier activity (again, instigation of the that was largely the point). But I watched it live, and there is plenty of footage still being released (why hide it?). Officers were indeed taking pictures, etc. All I'm asking for is sanity, but clearly partisanship is more important. Sad day.
  - hackable_sand 3y ago
    Don't feed the trolls.
- defrost 3y ago
  Flag washing defecating on desks? More than 2,000 rioters entered the building, with many vandalizing and looting, including the offices of then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Congress members. Rioters also assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters, and attempted to capture and harm lawmakers. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... Just "a lot of old folks walking within the ropes while being guided by Capitol Police" ? Nothing else happened there?
  - bluenomatterwho 3y ago
    [flagged]

hexage1814 3y ago

Glad to see that the world is finally starting to notice Brazil has become a judicial dictatorship.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hagbard_c 3y ago

[flagged]

tumsfestival 3y ago
[flagged]
- bluenomatterwho 3y ago
  [flagged]
- hexage1814 3y ago
  [flagged]

lvass 3y ago

@dang it looks like some political group are clicking on the flag button. Without moderation it's probably for the best, political divisiveness doesn't belong here, but I fail to see how this story is divisive except perhaps the fact it's related to a judge appointed by a president. Consider unflagging it and delete/warn/ban overly political divisive comments.

unclebucknasty 3y ago
>I fail to see how this story is divisive Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.
- lvass 3y ago
  Well, it is already unflagged. I don't follow your logic here though, the owner of Twitter isn't an adequate source of judicial orders received by twitter? What's wrong with Greenwald? Are you implying they collided to report something that did not happen? Why would that make sense? If that was the case, that itself would be news, not something to just flag and ignore.
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    Your question was WRT why some people would find the article politically divisive.
- hexage1814 3y ago
  >Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk. Honestly, you could say the same thing about the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, DW, etc or, hell, even Brazil's Supreme Court who will say “everything is working just fine”, despite the increasing censorship happening in the country that they have been taking part. Everyone has some narrative and bias. The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with. And when I'm reading the Times, I'm listening to some sort of "unfiltered truth". Sure, Musk might have other interests with this other than defending freedom of speech in Brazil. But the same can be said about Moraes, the Brazilian judge censoring journalists who criticize him left and right, going as far as trying to extradite them (and failing on that btw), blocking their profiles on social media, sure as hell isn't interested in "defend the rule of law" or whatever his official excuse is.

blastonico 3y ago

Brazil is under a judiciary kind of government regime, having that Alexandre Moreas as their supreme leader. They're hostile to high tech companies and entrepreneurs, but ok with the organized crime.

unclebucknasty 3y ago

Is this the part where — in order to avoid being downloaded or flagged — everyone continues to pretend that Musk really is a "free speech absolutist", instead of acknowledging a clear and distinct pattern of what he enforces, and against whom?

MrYellowP 3y ago
Well ... go on, don't keep it to yourself.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  >don't keep it to yourself It's not exactly a secret. See, for example, censorship in Turkey and India. In general, he's overwhelmingly approved censorship requests from authoritarian governments. So much for "free speech absolutism". In general, Musk himself regularly shouts his biases at the top of his lungs, and has applied selective enforcement of Twitter's own TOS. His selectivity can be easily aligned with his biases.
- walthamstow 3y ago
  He'll censor anything on behalf of Saudi Arabia or India, but complains loudly when it's Brazil. Why the double standard? He wants a pliable, aligned government in Brazil so he's using his megaphone to try to achieve that.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Oh dear, is your web browser broken? It should be trivial to search for detailed critiques, with terms like "Musk free speech hypocrisy", ex: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-musk-hypocrite-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m... https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/free-speech-experts-realizing-just-how-big-a-free-speech-hypocrite-elon-is/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/free-speech-experts-real...
barrysteve 3y ago
He does it to individuals and says as such in interviews. You have free speech, but not free reach. Twitter will limit the number of eyeballs that see your content if Twitter doesn't like what you have to say.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related: Musk challenges Brazil's order to block certain X accounts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39962568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39962568

r721 3y ago
Also related: >Brazil threatens to regulate social media after clash with Elon Musk https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39963060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39963060 >Brazil judge opens inquiry into Musk for obstruction involving X https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39965454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39965454 >Brazil Supreme Court orders investigation of Elon Musk over fake news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39967203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39967203
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Government also threatened to "review" its contracts with Starlink. You'd think they have cellphone towers covering the entire amazon.

secondary_op 3y ago

[flagged]

bad_username 3y ago
> Musk decided to comply. Even self proclaimed free speech absolutist from the land of free speech can not fight this. He has always been explicit in saying that he will protect _legal_ speech and would remove _illegal_ content. He always conceded that relevant laws can and will change, and finds this an acceptable and democratic way to moderate public discourse.
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  Except that the contents banned in Brazil were illegal content. Brazilian law allows content to be removed online for reasons of investigation, hate speech or unbased defamation. The Brazilian electoral laws forbids spending in secret for the purpose of buying or making propaganda for electoral campaign and also regulate what is allowed in the elections. For example: spending to propagate fake news to manipulate elections is not allowed.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Fake news... Such as the fact Lula is a socialist and a communist? I have videos of him calling himself a socialist, that should be good enough proof for anyone. Yet the judges censored it as fake news before election day. Care to comment on that? How about the fact he appointed a communist to the supreme court to act as a judge? I believe his words were something along the lines of "we finally have a communist in the supreme court". You're gonna gaslight me by claiming that's fake? Maybe AI generated? Some guy asked this new judge point blank if he was a communist, I remember his reply was "thank god", as in, absolutely. But according to the authorities it's all a conspiracy theory and there is no communism anywhere in this nation, right? It's all fake. Fake news... Such as the fact Lula is friends with the Venezuelan dictator? You know, the guy the US charged with narco-terrorism? Fake news, right? Lula wouldn't be so brazen as to literally roll out the red carpet for this guy immediately after the election, would he? He totally did though. Must have been seeing things I guess. Yeah that must be it. I literally hallucinated the entire episode. Fake news... Such as the fact Lula was implicated in, convicted of and incarcerated for the biggest corruption scandal in the history of this country? And also the fact these judges just threw out the whole case on some minor technicality? Pulled him straight out of jail just in time for the election? You're gonna tell me that I'm delusional, that I'm misremembering things? The way I see it, literally everything they censored as "fake" turned out to be true in the end. So what's the penalty for the truth ministers when they turn out to be wrong? Maybe they should sign the order for their own arrests? Are they even allowed to be wrong? Does reality have to bend and conform until they're right? Maybe they'll redefine pi as 5 and arrest the mathematicians who prove then wrong? I wouldn't even be surprised. Not to mention the fact Lula and his communists get constantly fact checked on Twitter/X. Every other day I run into some hilarious presidential tweet saying some dumb thing and the fact checking proving the opposite with source links. Latest episode was some official claiming that TikTok had already been banned in the US. So where's the censorship for these guys? Why hasn't the president been arrested for spreading fake news yet? ... Oh I see it now. That's why they hate Twitter/X so much.

derelicta 3y ago

Censorship is a tool. One can wield it appropriately, or grossely misuse it.

soapdog 3y ago

Tired of Musk fanboi’s conflicting hate speech and disinformation with freedom. Tired of North Americans and Europeans that have zero context about nuances of Brazilian recent history and struggles, thinking their shallow opinions and misconceptions should be accepted as facts. Really tired of tech bros that think everything that is against their ability to troll is censorship.

sickofparadox 3y ago
Tired of countries who think they get to impose their standards on American social media companies (because they cannot make their own) throwing tantrums that they will act in line with American values. You think you have a right to regulate what someone can and cannot say - America does not. Block twitter and make your own then.
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  > Tired of countries who think they get to impose their standards on American social media companies Being an American social media do not exempts you from following the law in the countries where you operate. They do not carry with them to that countries the jurisdiction of American laws.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Oh I'm sure the americans will quickly get sick of this unelected brazilian judge, a literal nobody from some barbaric communist country, thinking he can whimsically censor and fine their corporations. In fact I'm counting on it. I hope this guy pisses the americans off so much they actually apply sanctions to my own country. Not the first time he does it either. Last year Google engaged in a little campaign against their proposed "fake news" law, they just added a little link to their home page. These judges censored Google: 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 They essentially threatened to steal from the american economy an average software developer's yearly salary every hour if their demands were not met. Their unconstitutional demands, by the way. Brazilian constitution says censorship is illegal. And these are the guys whose literal job is to apply that constitution. Think about it. Google could have hired one person from here for every hour of "disobedience". Doesn't that piss you off? I hope it does. I hope it gets someone to write something to their representatives.