2 ms·

They are both privately owned by a dude that reinstated accounts that make threats against members of Brazil’s supreme court(1) and then recently tried to refra

They are both privately owned by a dude that reinstated accounts that make threats against members of Brazil’s supreme court(1) and then recently tried to reframe it as a petty squabble about posting by posting weird angry AI-generated memes about a judge (2). It is unsurprising to see somebody that’s actively trying to push the envelope about a country’s sovereignty be hit with sanctions on their business operations inside said country. 1 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef06c0dbbb8ed87495b1afbb0edf211 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef0... 2 https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-posts-ai-photos-of-brazilian-judge-in-jail-insults-him-with-name-on-toilet-paper/ar-AA1pDY1n https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-posts-ai-phot...

miohtama 2y ago
This has been controversial in Brazil - not 100% clear cut. While suspending some of accounts making threats should be supported, de Moraes has been also going after what seem to be legit political activity https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidadania/redes-sociais-se-unem-contra-censura-do-stf-contra-pco/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidada... Furthermore, instead of banning the accounts upfront, for disputed casese, it would seem to be a fair to have court process for the people involved and let them defend their behaviour. > Last week, the Supreme Court justices ruled on six appeals filed by Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (the group that controls Facebook and Instagram) against Moraes' decision in a virtual session. They all unanimously considered that blocking all channels, profiles and accounts of a person or party is an act of prior censorship, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution and also clearly rejected by the Internet Civil Rights Framework, in respect of freedom of expression.

miohtama 2y ago

This has been controversial in Brazil - not 100% clear cut. While suspending some of accounts making threats should be supported, de Moraes has been also going after what seem to be legit political activity https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidadania/redes-sociais-se-unem-contra-censura-do-stf-contra-pco/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidada... Furthermore, instead of banning the accounts upfront, for disputed casese, it would seem to be a fair to have court process for the people involved and let them defend their behaviour. > Last week, the Supreme Court justices ruled on six appeals filed by Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (the group that controls Facebook and Instagram) against Moraes' decision in a virtual session. They all unanimously considered that blocking all channels, profiles and accounts of a person or party is an act of prior censorship, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution and also clearly rejected by the Internet Civil Rights Framework, in respect of freedom of expression.