7 ms·

One of the linked articles said it boiled down to X being ordered to censor political opponents of those in power. They chose not to. I’m glad. Now, traffic is

One of the linked articles said it boiled down to X being ordered to censor political opponents of those in power. They chose not to. I’m glad. Now, traffic is going to Bluesky. I wonder if this means that Bluesky has or will be offered the same choice. We might see what the character of that organization is by what choice they make.

katbyte 2y ago
Elon musk was happy to allow government “censorship” it turkey India and other countries where it aligned with his views.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  I was commenting strictly on what’s in the articles’ links. If he did that, it would be just as deplorable as the censorship they were claiming to oppose.
  - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
    > If he did that, it would be just as deplorable [...] No need for hypotheticals. He did do that (this is an easily-verifiable fact [1][2][3]). > [...] the censorship they were claiming to oppose. The thing is that this is clearly an empty claim, when Musk has no problems either complying with similar censoring orders from right-wing governments (Modi, Erdogan) or with arbitrarily censoring people for using medically-approved terms (like "cis" or "cisgender") that he simply does not like [4][5]. All of this censorship by Twitter is (legally) 100% within their right to do, as a private entity, but then whatever claims he (or Twitter) has of being a "defender of free speech" ring a bit hollow. Given these things, the more plausible explanation for Musk's actions is not that he wants to defend free speech (or that he is fundamentally against censorship), but simply that the request comes from a (left-wing) government that is not ideologically aligned with his views. It's a choice. But choices have consequences. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitter-erdogan-india-modi-free-speech.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitte... [2] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04/musk-fulfilled-hundreds-of-content-removal-orders-from-x-outside-brazil-without-accusing-censorship.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04... [3] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punjab-amritpal-singh/ https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja... [4] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitter https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitte... [5] https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319?lang=en https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319...
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      Regardless of Musk's motivations, would you rather he had complied with this latest request? In other words, would you rather there's more censorship in the world?
      - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
        The world is not black and white... there are shades of grey. Sometimes censorship is lawful and/or justified, sometimes it is not. I don't know if, in this case, it is justified or not, but it seems to be lawful (the same way that the censorship requests in India and Turkey were), as far as I can tell (I assume a judge of the Supreme Court knows a bit more about Brazilian law than you and me). Given that Musk/Twitter seemingly has no problem complying with lawful censorship demands (or engaging in arbitrary censorship even without lawful censorship demands), it seems clear to me that Musk has no problem with "more censorship in the world". That was my only point. My personal opinion on whether there is higher or lower need for censorship in the world is rather irrelevant (since I have no power or platforms to censor), but I certainly see no problem in actively censoring terrorists, bots, spammers and scammers (for example).
        fluoridation 2y ago
        It's not irrelevant to me, which why I'm asking. I'm asking if you would have preferred Musk to be consistent and ban those accounts instead. And if so, why? Do you agree with censorship if and only if it's legal (whatever that means in a particular jurisdiction)? Or is there some other reason?
        fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
        As I mentioned, I agree with censorship when it is legitimate (ethically or morally justified), and I agree with the need for rule-of-law. It is not me that is arguing that censorship is ok when it is legal (and not ok otherwise), but Twitter/Musk. In this particular case, I do not have enough information to state with certainty whether I think this particular case is legitimate or not, but it does seem to be lawful (which is the criterion that is seemingly important for Twitter/Musk). I have no particular preference with regards to whether Musk chooses to be consistent or not: that's his decision and he/Twitter is the one that has to endure the consequences of his actions (not me). Since I am not a Twitter user, it does not affect me either way, and I don't see how it will significantly affect Brazilian's capacity to freely communicate (note: there are plenty of other private communication platforms that do comply with Brazilian law... Telegram, Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook, etc.). On the other hand, I do think it is hypocritical to claim to be a "defender of free speech", and then both engage in non-state-mandated censorship AND comply with state-mandated censorship (as long as it suits him or Twitter). It's a laughable claim. That was my only point.
esharte 2y ago
Did you miss the whole part where these "policial opponents" attempted a coup against the democratically elected president?
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Everyone has a right to speech, even those you disagree with politically.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I guess the assertion above is that they were not banned for mere speech?
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      I don't think it is. I think the assertion is that people who have been accused of supporting something that has been seen as a coup by supporters of the administration should have their speech banned, anyone who helps them speak should be arrested, and anyone who listens to them speak should be fined $10,000 per violation.
  - EricDeb 2y ago
    but not in India or Turkey apparently
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  There was no coup. There was a protest. The protesters wanted the military to enact a coup. And the military did not attempt a coup. You simply cannot claim that elderly people with bibles and flags amounts to a coup or even an attempt at one. This was discussed at length only two days ago. If you disagree with this, just refer to this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387024 My account is rate limited to ~5 posts/hour so I don't plan on recreating that thread here.
  - 2y ago
bsnsxd 2y ago
"censor political opponents" is the most intellectually dishonest take, and in it lies the whole root of the discussion. Said opponents' accounts were asked to be shut down, not because they are opponents, but because they were being used to commit crimes against the electoral justice. The Supreme Court is a lifetime seat meant to not be caught in bi-yearly electoral politics, so it can oversee it, this current judge was the appointed by draw the judge of the whole "fake news inquiry", like every thing at the supreme court, he was also the elected president of the Supreme Court at the time of the previous elections (he was elected president by his colleagues in the supreme court). If the president at the time, or the drawn judge, was to be pro-coup, then we wouldn't have this whole debacle and elon musk would probably be CEO of Brazil at this moment. Since elon musk became owner of Twitter, brazillian court has struggled significantly more to obtain data from criminal accounts (a famous example being hate speech accounts that were not shut down, nor "doxxed" to the court, since according to twitter the hate speech didn't break TOS), to a point where it became impossible, so the court had to act, this situation has been boiling for a few years with Elon trying to strongarm his will in the country, he raised the bets, STF's called his bluff.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Said opponents' accounts were asked to be shut down, not because they are opponents, but because they were being used to commit crimes against the electoral justice. What are the "crimes" they're being accused of? Getting the opposition locked for "crimes" is basically authoritarianism 101. See: Venezuela[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election#Disqualification_of_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_e...
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Crimes like calling the current president a condemned criminal. Which he once was. I watched them arrest him, and I watched multiple judges condemn him. Then these judges erased his crimes due to some technicality and made him innocent again, and we're all supposed to just magically unring the bells and wash our memories of these facts, or be censored. Crimes like calling the current president a friend of dictators. Which he is. This guy rolled out the red carpet for the Venezuelan dictator months after he was elected. He also defended his recent "reelection". Crimes like calling the current president a communist/socialist. Which he is. He literally calls himself one. I even have videos. It's all "fake news" according to the judges.
throwadobe 2y ago
It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.
- paulvnickerson 2y ago
  Including a sitting senator and a pastor... [1] [1] https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479 https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479
  - throwadobe 2y ago
    Are senators or pastors above the law? Go read the decision: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-12404-Assinada.pdf https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124... More generally, one doesn't get to say "No, judge, I won't comply with your decision" without repercussions.
    - macinjosh 2y ago
      Seems like the repercussions are mainly on Brazilian citizens who cannot access free and open information.
      - throwadobe 2y ago
        Factually incorrect. Plenty of free and open information in other networks in Brazil and through its free press.
- UberFly 2y ago
  >X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence God this sounds so 1984-ish.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The problem with Elon is that he's decided to pick and choose which countries he will comply with local legislation on, and which ones he won't. So India, Turkey, he did. Brazil, he didn't. Maybe the Supreme Court in Brazil is "wrong" and "corrupt" where legislators in India and Turkey are not, but knowing a fair bit about all three countries, I doubt very much that to be the case. So then it's a business decision -- or more like a "whatever pisses Elon off" decision, which in the end is just as "corrupt" as your typical corrupt dictator who acts on whatever pisses them off.
avsteele 2y ago
At this point, I'm only mildly surprised by the pro-censorship sentiments which are prevalent here at HN. Still, for those with an open mind... Read the NY times article; it is not amazing well done but serves to show how unaccountable the orders of the judge are. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/world/americas/brazil-x-ban-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/world/americas/brazil-x-b... Then read the orders from the judge (as claimed by X). "Secretly ban this sitting senator within a few hours" https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/photo/1 https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  When Musk is picking-and-choosing where freedom of expression matters (e.g., Turkey, India, publishing his plane's location information, banning users writing "cisgender", etc.), I don't think it's "pro-censorship" to not be on his side here because this doesn't feel motivated by true principle and puts his motives and associated narrative into highly suspect territory for me. Is some selective censorship from Musk better than nothing? Since his selective censorship appears to be primarily aimed at supporting right-wing causes, I have a hard time feeling like the answer is "yes".
  - avsteele 2y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me. I'm just doing to poke at one aspect. Imagine you are a Brazilian. The government will censor these speakers whatever they appear. If you favor this ruling you are agreeing with the statement "Yes, I trust the Brazilian government to be the one to determine what is misinformation and against democracy and to make action to prevent me from seeing it" Twitter/Musk can not substantially change your access to information as there are many other sources. The government can.
    - HelloMcFly 2y ago
      I'm not saying I'm "in favor" of what Brazil is doing - despite having read some news articles, I'm not confident I fully understand the entire situation. But what I am saying is that I'm having a hard time getting up in arms about this or feeling like X is fighting a righteous fight. Here's my own thought experiment: if X overtly and publicly said they would fight all censorship-related actions by left-wing governments, but acquiesce willingly to all right-wing governments, should I be happier about that than if they treated all governments equally? I can understand why the answer for some is "yes, because for those individuals in those countries they deserve freedom of expression even if it's only given as a tool to power structures trying to erode their rights." But while I get it, that's not how I feel, because then the actions aren't motivated by principal, but by an effort to shape global politics.

katbyte 2y ago

Elon musk was happy to allow government “censorship” it turkey India and other countries where it aligned with his views.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nickpsecurity 2y ago
I was commenting strictly on what’s in the articles’ links. If he did that, it would be just as deplorable as the censorship they were claiming to oppose.
- fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
  > If he did that, it would be just as deplorable [...] No need for hypotheticals. He did do that (this is an easily-verifiable fact [1][2][3]). > [...] the censorship they were claiming to oppose. The thing is that this is clearly an empty claim, when Musk has no problems either complying with similar censoring orders from right-wing governments (Modi, Erdogan) or with arbitrarily censoring people for using medically-approved terms (like "cis" or "cisgender") that he simply does not like [4][5]. All of this censorship by Twitter is (legally) 100% within their right to do, as a private entity, but then whatever claims he (or Twitter) has of being a "defender of free speech" ring a bit hollow. Given these things, the more plausible explanation for Musk's actions is not that he wants to defend free speech (or that he is fundamentally against censorship), but simply that the request comes from a (left-wing) government that is not ideologically aligned with his views. It's a choice. But choices have consequences. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitter-erdogan-india-modi-free-speech.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitte... [2] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04/musk-fulfilled-hundreds-of-content-removal-orders-from-x-outside-brazil-without-accusing-censorship.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04... [3] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punjab-amritpal-singh/ https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja... [4] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitter https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitte... [5] https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319?lang=en https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319...
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Regardless of Musk's motivations, would you rather he had complied with this latest request? In other words, would you rather there's more censorship in the world?
    - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
      The world is not black and white... there are shades of grey. Sometimes censorship is lawful and/or justified, sometimes it is not. I don't know if, in this case, it is justified or not, but it seems to be lawful (the same way that the censorship requests in India and Turkey were), as far as I can tell (I assume a judge of the Supreme Court knows a bit more about Brazilian law than you and me). Given that Musk/Twitter seemingly has no problem complying with lawful censorship demands (or engaging in arbitrary censorship even without lawful censorship demands), it seems clear to me that Musk has no problem with "more censorship in the world". That was my only point. My personal opinion on whether there is higher or lower need for censorship in the world is rather irrelevant (since I have no power or platforms to censor), but I certainly see no problem in actively censoring terrorists, bots, spammers and scammers (for example).
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        It's not irrelevant to me, which why I'm asking. I'm asking if you would have preferred Musk to be consistent and ban those accounts instead. And if so, why? Do you agree with censorship if and only if it's legal (whatever that means in a particular jurisdiction)? Or is there some other reason?
        fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
        As I mentioned, I agree with censorship when it is legitimate (ethically or morally justified), and I agree with the need for rule-of-law. It is not me that is arguing that censorship is ok when it is legal (and not ok otherwise), but Twitter/Musk. In this particular case, I do not have enough information to state with certainty whether I think this particular case is legitimate or not, but it does seem to be lawful (which is the criterion that is seemingly important for Twitter/Musk). I have no particular preference with regards to whether Musk chooses to be consistent or not: that's his decision and he/Twitter is the one that has to endure the consequences of his actions (not me). Since I am not a Twitter user, it does not affect me either way, and I don't see how it will significantly affect Brazilian's capacity to freely communicate (note: there are plenty of other private communication platforms that do comply with Brazilian law... Telegram, Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook, etc.). On the other hand, I do think it is hypocritical to claim to be a "defender of free speech", and then both engage in non-state-mandated censorship AND comply with state-mandated censorship (as long as it suits him or Twitter). It's a laughable claim. That was my only point.

esharte 2y ago

Did you miss the whole part where these "policial opponents" attempted a coup against the democratically elected president?

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Everyone has a right to speech, even those you disagree with politically.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  I guess the assertion above is that they were not banned for mere speech?
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    I don't think it is. I think the assertion is that people who have been accused of supporting something that has been seen as a coup by supporters of the administration should have their speech banned, anyone who helps them speak should be arrested, and anyone who listens to them speak should be fined $10,000 per violation.
- EricDeb 2y ago
  but not in India or Turkey apparently
matheusmoreira 2y ago
There was no coup. There was a protest. The protesters wanted the military to enact a coup. And the military did not attempt a coup. You simply cannot claim that elderly people with bibles and flags amounts to a coup or even an attempt at one. This was discussed at length only two days ago. If you disagree with this, just refer to this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387024 My account is rate limited to ~5 posts/hour so I don't plan on recreating that thread here.
- 2y ago

bsnsxd 2y ago

"censor political opponents" is the most intellectually dishonest take, and in it lies the whole root of the discussion. Said opponents' accounts were asked to be shut down, not because they are opponents, but because they were being used to commit crimes against the electoral justice. The Supreme Court is a lifetime seat meant to not be caught in bi-yearly electoral politics, so it can oversee it, this current judge was the appointed by draw the judge of the whole "fake news inquiry", like every thing at the supreme court, he was also the elected president of the Supreme Court at the time of the previous elections (he was elected president by his colleagues in the supreme court). If the president at the time, or the drawn judge, was to be pro-coup, then we wouldn't have this whole debacle and elon musk would probably be CEO of Brazil at this moment. Since elon musk became owner of Twitter, brazillian court has struggled significantly more to obtain data from criminal accounts (a famous example being hate speech accounts that were not shut down, nor "doxxed" to the court, since according to twitter the hate speech didn't break TOS), to a point where it became impossible, so the court had to act, this situation has been boiling for a few years with Elon trying to strongarm his will in the country, he raised the bets, STF's called his bluff.

gruez 2y ago
>Said opponents' accounts were asked to be shut down, not because they are opponents, but because they were being used to commit crimes against the electoral justice. What are the "crimes" they're being accused of? Getting the opposition locked for "crimes" is basically authoritarianism 101. See: Venezuela[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election#Disqualification_of_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_e...
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Crimes like calling the current president a condemned criminal. Which he once was. I watched them arrest him, and I watched multiple judges condemn him. Then these judges erased his crimes due to some technicality and made him innocent again, and we're all supposed to just magically unring the bells and wash our memories of these facts, or be censored. Crimes like calling the current president a friend of dictators. Which he is. This guy rolled out the red carpet for the Venezuelan dictator months after he was elected. He also defended his recent "reelection". Crimes like calling the current president a communist/socialist. Which he is. He literally calls himself one. I even have videos. It's all "fake news" according to the judges.

throwadobe 2y ago

It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.

paulvnickerson 2y ago
Including a sitting senator and a pastor... [1] [1] https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479 https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479
- throwadobe 2y ago
  Are senators or pastors above the law? Go read the decision: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-12404-Assinada.pdf https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124... More generally, one doesn't get to say "No, judge, I won't comply with your decision" without repercussions.
  - macinjosh 2y ago
    Seems like the repercussions are mainly on Brazilian citizens who cannot access free and open information.
    - throwadobe 2y ago
      Factually incorrect. Plenty of free and open information in other networks in Brazil and through its free press.
UberFly 2y ago
>X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence God this sounds so 1984-ish.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The problem with Elon is that he's decided to pick and choose which countries he will comply with local legislation on, and which ones he won't. So India, Turkey, he did. Brazil, he didn't. Maybe the Supreme Court in Brazil is "wrong" and "corrupt" where legislators in India and Turkey are not, but knowing a fair bit about all three countries, I doubt very much that to be the case. So then it's a business decision -- or more like a "whatever pisses Elon off" decision, which in the end is just as "corrupt" as your typical corrupt dictator who acts on whatever pisses them off.

avsteele 2y ago

At this point, I'm only mildly surprised by the pro-censorship sentiments which are prevalent here at HN. Still, for those with an open mind... Read the NY times article; it is not amazing well done but serves to show how unaccountable the orders of the judge are. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/world/americas/brazil-x-ban-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/world/americas/brazil-x-b... Then read the orders from the judge (as claimed by X). "Secretly ban this sitting senator within a few hours" https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/photo/1 https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
HelloMcFly 2y ago
When Musk is picking-and-choosing where freedom of expression matters (e.g., Turkey, India, publishing his plane's location information, banning users writing "cisgender", etc.), I don't think it's "pro-censorship" to not be on his side here because this doesn't feel motivated by true principle and puts his motives and associated narrative into highly suspect territory for me. Is some selective censorship from Musk better than nothing? Since his selective censorship appears to be primarily aimed at supporting right-wing causes, I have a hard time feeling like the answer is "yes".
- avsteele 2y ago
  This doesn't make sense to me. I'm just doing to poke at one aspect. Imagine you are a Brazilian. The government will censor these speakers whatever they appear. If you favor this ruling you are agreeing with the statement "Yes, I trust the Brazilian government to be the one to determine what is misinformation and against democracy and to make action to prevent me from seeing it" Twitter/Musk can not substantially change your access to information as there are many other sources. The government can.
  - HelloMcFly 2y ago
    I'm not saying I'm "in favor" of what Brazil is doing - despite having read some news articles, I'm not confident I fully understand the entire situation. But what I am saying is that I'm having a hard time getting up in arms about this or feeling like X is fighting a righteous fight. Here's my own thought experiment: if X overtly and publicly said they would fight all censorship-related actions by left-wing governments, but acquiesce willingly to all right-wing governments, should I be happier about that than if they treated all governments equally? I can understand why the answer for some is "yes, because for those individuals in those countries they deserve freedom of expression even if it's only given as a tool to power structures trying to erode their rights." But while I get it, that's not how I feel, because then the actions aren't motivated by principal, but by an effort to shape global politics.