11 ms·
So what crime did X commit to? Or it refused to censor your opponent and made you angry?
by chihwei 2y ago
So what crime did X commit to? Or it refused to censor your opponent and made you angry?
- gchamonlive 2y agohttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billionaire, so here we are.
- chihwei 2y agoSo you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?
- Kamq 2y agoIn a lot of places? Yeah. Like super illegal (felony level)
- gchamonlive 2y agohttps://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-speech/international-human-rights-law https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-sp... > While certain restrictions on freedom of expression may be motivated by principles of equality and non-discrimination, “direct and public incitement to genocide” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are strictly prohibited under international law, and are considered the “severest forms of hate speech”.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThere’s no legitimate definition of hate speech. It’s just an ever expansive label used to undermine political speech and justify censorship or criminal charges. Free speech is the most fundamental civil liberty. Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.
- gchamonlive 2y agoIt's a dispute between Brazil supreme court and a US based company. I didn't want to refer to Brazilian law because it seemed circumstantial, nor could I refer to US law because the first amendment defeats it. Falling back to international law only seemed natural so I didn't think I should have explained my rationale. But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.
- nradov 2y agoThere's no such thing as international law. It's an imaginary concept. The UN is not a legislative body or sovereign entity.
- bumby 2y agoIsn't all law* outside of natural laws essentially an agreed upon framework of convenience? Sovereignty itself only works in consensus (see the failures of the sovereign citizen movement in the US). *I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"
- gchamonlive 2y agoIt's all tangential to the point. > So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like? That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.
- bumby 2y agoYou’re right, I wasn’t making any comment on your point.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago> However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality. Source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
- tbrownaw 2y agoIn some parts of the world, the local governments have decreed that it is.
- dyauspitr 2y agoI don’t know ask Elon, he has been pretty consistently censoring the left. Just last week he blocked the “whitedudesforkamala” account. Is that not censorship?
- ripjaygn 2y agoThat account was automatically flagged for spam and then reinstated. Even if it wasn't, censorship by an individual or a company is not a crime, are you confused by the first amendment which is a restriction on the government? X or Musk are not the government.
- cassianoleal 2y agoIt's not about liking or not - it's about breaking the law. Hate speech is qualified in Brazilian criminal law. Nazism and anti-democratic aggitation are crimes, for instance.
- ripjaygn 2y ago> "Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't." > He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content. > When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied. That is hilarious, thanks for the article. And I don't see examples of crimes committed by X or Musk in there?
- gchamonlive 2y ago> But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure. > Several fringe characters that were banned under the previous management have been reinstated. > They include Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, and Liz Crokin, one of the biggest propagators of the QAnon conspiracy theory. From that same hilarious article.
- ripjaygn 2y agoThose people are not billionaires, so why haven't they been prosecuted if, as you allege, they have committed crimes.
- verzali 2y agoAnglin is literally on the run from the law and has an arrest warrant issued for him.
- MarcoZavala 2y ago[dead]
- GolfPopper 2y agoAh, the ever popular "hey, can you re-create Einstein's theory of relativity for me right now? No? I guess physics must be fake, then" argument, popular with bad-faith conversationalists of all stripes. Links from the BBC article you appear to have missed: "Antisemitism on Twitter Before and After Elon Musk’s Acquisition"[1] "The Musk Bump: Quantifying the rise in hate speech under Elon Musk"[2] Additional studies: "Hate Speech Spikes on Twitter After Elon Musk Acquires the Platform" [3] "Auditing Elon Musk’s Impact on Hate Speech and Bots" [4] 1. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemitism-on-Twitter-Before-and-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit... 2. https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-rise-in-hate-speech-under-elon-musk/ https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r... 3. https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2022/11/Montclair-State-SCM-Study-Increases-in-Twitter-Hate-Speech-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/... 4. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129 http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129
- wewtyflakes 2y ago:shrug: I don't use X, so I don't get caught up in it. I am just making an outsider's perspective to both X and the Brazilian Supreme Court. I see articles posted constantly about both, and they both stir up controversy.
- chihwei 2y agoI think you implied your opinion on this.
- wewtyflakes 2y agoWhat a coincidence, so did you! :)
- tbrownaw 2y agoPresumably refusing to censor things that the government there wanted censored? AIUI most of the rest of the world doesn't have our legal prohibitions against the government doing that.
- grugagag 2y agoAnd yet big companies bow to countries such as China under the ‘it’s all just business’ mantra. Brazil isn’t China but they’re not some small islands either, they can challenge SV and that is a good thing.
- pasabagi 2y agoNo need to presume: you can read the article. "dissemination of defamatory fake news and another probe over possible obstruction, incitement and criminal organization." Which is fair enough, I think.
- Gud 2y agoSome blanket statements how X are bad is fair enough? To be frank, this censorship and threats of censorship is much scarier than whatever X are doing.
- cassianoleal 2y agoObviously there's a lot more detail in all the prosecutions and investigations. Most, or all of it, should be publicly available if you really care to understand the problem. Laws have been broken, and this is the justice system's reaction to that. This is not censorship. Brazil (and most of the world) don't subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of press are unbound.
- nradov 2y agoThis is censorship. Just because it's being done within a legal framework doesn't mean it's not censorship. The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression. The rest of the world should subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of expression are (nearly) unbound. The USA is the only major country which gets this right.
- dyauspitr 2y agoNo, it selectively censors my side and lets my “opponent” off scott free.
- defrost 2y agoX-Twitter doesn't refuse to censor opponents though, eg: Twitter blocked 122 accounts in India at the government’s request https://restofworld.org/2023/twitter-blocked-access-punjab-amritpal-singh-sandhu/ https://restofworld.org/2023/twitter-blocked-access-punjab-a... Elon Musk caved to government pressure to censor tweets ahead of the Turkish election. https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-censorship-elon-musk-throttled-tweets-turkey-presidential-election-2023-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-censorship-elon-...
- chihwei 2y agoThey didn't fight last one doesn't imply what they are fighting this time is not justified.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoTwitter’s argument, which they’re trying to make in Brazil through the justice system, is that the orders to censor (by one Supreme Court justice) aren’t constitutional under Brazilian law. In those other cases, Twitter abided by local law as they claimed they would.
- defrost 2y agoSure, an argument that may or may not have merit. The greater point to my comment is that they have a track record of siding with the Mohdi's, Bolsonaro's, Erdoğan's et al when it comes to blocking accounts and otherwise standing on principal as "free speech absolutists" when they like the disinfomation being spread. That's just the new face of X-Twitter.
- Kamq 2y agoI mean... Brazil's a sovereign country, so whatever crime Brazil decides they did? The law's about power, not rationality.
- hyfgfh 2y agoCan't read the news just the headline? Maybe that's the crime!