5 ms·

Presumably 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 t

Presumably 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 ago
And 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 ago
No 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 ago
  Some 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 ago
    Obviously 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 ago
      This 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.
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        > This is censorship. No, it's not. > The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression. This is a very loaded comment, full of personal opinions. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it's factual truth. In any case, we have. At least within the limits of our USA-inspired representative democracy. Federal law goes through 3 houses of elected representatives: the National Congress, the Senate and the Union Executive. The Constitution goes through even more scrutiny. > The rest of the world should More personal opinions. Which, again, is fine. But it's not factual truth. > The USA is the only major country which gets this right I think this says it all. We have very little common basis for discussion. I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
        bumby 2y ago
        >I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong. I would like to hear you expound on this.
        cassianoleal 2y ago
        Normally, I would - happily. I am sorry though, but I don't have the time right now. If and when I do, I will come back to this.
        bumby 2y ago
        Fair enough
        nradov 2y ago
        You appear to be confused about the definition of censorship. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship When any party, either government or private, blocks free expression then that is literally censorship. It might be legally or morally justified in some circumstances, but it is still censorship. Words mean things. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Anyone who accuses X of hosting disinformation and fake news will 100% win in court. It’s at least 75%of the content I see when I dare to go to the “for you” algo feed.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    "Disinformation and fake news" should not be crimes that anyone gets taken to court for to begin with.
    - bsnsxd 2y ago
      [flagged]

Presumably 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 ago

And 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 ago

No 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 ago
Some 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 ago
  Obviously 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 ago
    This 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.
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      > This is censorship. No, it's not. > The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression. This is a very loaded comment, full of personal opinions. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it's factual truth. In any case, we have. At least within the limits of our USA-inspired representative democracy. Federal law goes through 3 houses of elected representatives: the National Congress, the Senate and the Union Executive. The Constitution goes through even more scrutiny. > The rest of the world should More personal opinions. Which, again, is fine. But it's not factual truth. > The USA is the only major country which gets this right I think this says it all. We have very little common basis for discussion. I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
      - bumby 2y ago
        >I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong. I would like to hear you expound on this.
        cassianoleal 2y ago
        Normally, I would - happily. I am sorry though, but I don't have the time right now. If and when I do, I will come back to this.
        bumby 2y ago
        Fair enough
      - nradov 2y ago
        You appear to be confused about the definition of censorship. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship When any party, either government or private, blocks free expression then that is literally censorship. It might be legally or morally justified in some circumstances, but it is still censorship. Words mean things. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.
EasyMark 2y ago
Anyone who accuses X of hosting disinformation and fake news will 100% win in court. It’s at least 75%of the content I see when I dare to go to the “for you” algo feed.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  "Disinformation and fake news" should not be crimes that anyone gets taken to court for to begin with.
  - bsnsxd 2y ago
    [flagged]