4 ms·

Wild to see a newspaper so mercurial about censorship.

• taylodl 2y ago
  Is banning a platform censorship? Wouldn't censorship involve banning specific posts on the platform?
  • slowmovintarget 2y ago
    The ban is a direct result of refusal to censor, so this is 100% about censorship. Recap: Judge requests censoring, X says "no," judge says censor or I'll throw your reps in jail, X withdraws reps, judge bans X (and started going after StarLink, SpaceX, and anything Elon's touched).
    • taylodl 2y ago
      Your summary is too hand-wavy and misses key points. The request wasn't for X to filter posts, which is what most people consider to be censoring. The request was to block certain individuals. X refused, the judge ordered the entire platform be blocked, X appealed to the Brazilian Supreme Court who in turn upheld the judge's decision to block the entire platform in Brazil. You have to follow a country's laws when doing business in that country. As the judge noted, and I'm definitely paraphrasing here but it gets the sentiment across, who the hell does Elon Musk think he is?
      • taylodl 2y ago
        Also, Musk isn't telling the whole story https://apnews.com/article/brazil-twitter-elon-musk-x-censorship-f51dc67d51c8f5a1cf152ba467f44a8f https://apnews.com/article/brazil-twitter-elon-musk-x-censor...
      • matheusmoreira 2y ago
        > The request was to block certain individuals. Yes. Because of the political posts they made. Also known as censorship. Which is unconstitutional in Brazil. Whose constitution goes out of its way to say that political censorship of any kind is illegal. There is no problem with Musk deciding to ban something on his website. The problem is some judge illegally compelling him to do so.
        • taylodl 2y ago
          The Brazilian Supreme Court defines what is, and isn't, constitutional. Not you. Not Elon Musk.
          • matheusmoreira 2y ago
            The constitution defines what's constitutional. The supreme court's job is to apply the constitution. Not to redefine it. Their job is to be a law application machine. We don't want them "redefining" things. That's the job of our elected representatives. Not a single person voted on these supreme court judges. Their jobs are to do what's written on the paper, no more and no less. The constitution plainly states in very simple terms that anyone can understand: > Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited > The expression of thought is free It's very simple. People have argued some impressive mental gymnastics to relativize those very simple lines of text but I'm just not convinced. The accounts in question were engaged in political discourse. A judge ordering the erasure of such discourse absolutely does fall in the deliberately broad category of "any and all censorship of political and ideological nature". There is simply no way this is justified.
          • crop_rotation 2y ago
            By this kind of absurd logic the Court could annoint a Monarch and it would be constitutional as per you.
• matheusmoreira 2y ago
  It's especially ironic because censoring the press is what got this judge started down this path. A brazilian magazine ran a damning article on one of the supreme court judges. They created a "fake news" inquisition and appointed this judge as the head of it. First thing he does? Censor the magazine as "fake news". It's under the umbrella of that "fake news" inquistion that X got ordered to censor political accounts.