3 ms·

Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unl

by nomilk 2mo ago

Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). Love or hate X, it deserves a massive hat tilt for its transparency here.

Shank 2mo ago
> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I wonder how many normal people actually follow political accounts like this. I follow my local government because they sometimes tweet emergency info but I don’t follow candidates at all. I don’t follow political influencers either. It’s far too noisy.
Fnoord 2mo ago
> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting. But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That is the purpose of his action. Musk does the same with regards to other democracies, such as AfD in Germany.
- carlosjobim 2mo ago
  Your reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored. I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the public knowing which accounts are limited and why.
  - mschuster91 2mo ago
    Well Musk has interfered in elections and riots before so it’s definitely a good idea to hold him under extremely close scrutiny. Being the world’s richest person and one of the most powerful influencers comes with responsibility, a responsibility that Musk has shown to be lacking.
    - carlosjobim 2mo ago
      Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.
      - Fnoord 2mo ago
        > That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show those parts of his machine. He still does shadowbanning, too. [1] https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on-brazilian-twitter-following-bolsonaro-defeat-e1876a45a137 https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on...
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Why not let them say whatever they want, but just cancel the election after the fact if you feel like the result endangers democracy? It’s worked before. It seems a little more honest and above-board, as well. No smoke-filled back rooms, just “election cancelled”.
        matheusmoreira 2mo ago
        Cancelling an election has "this is not the result I wanted, do it again" undertones.
- bspammer 2mo ago
  They’re not propagandists, they’re the official accounts of candidates in the election. I don’t see any problem with this as long as it’s applied to all candidates equally.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  These laws don't "protect democracy," even the most charitable interpretation of them is that they protect liberal values against democracy. They're inherently counter-majoritarian. Democracy doesn't mean liberalism. E.g. If Iran's ayatollah was elected by free and fair elections, but otherwise the country's laws and policies were the same, that would still be democracy.
NooneAtAll3 2mo ago
if anything, I would completely unsubscribe from US-controlled social platform before the election anywhere outside US
- PearlRiver 2mo ago
  Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Anyone in my country who is caught funded with US money may as well hang themselves they are electorally dead as a dodo. This to be fair is why the CIA had to move suitcases with money instead of bragging about it on Fox News...
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    > Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Ironic, isn't it?
  - NooneAtAll3 2mo ago
    antidote to US propaganda is anti-US propaganda :) nationalism doesn't oppose US if US has bought all the nationalist movement (like f.e. in Ukraine circa 2014) - you get all the minuses of totalitarianism without all the bonuses of independence from US
airstrike 2mo ago
They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments about such decisions should revolve around whether the law says what the courts say it does or whether it was applied correctly—not whether the law should exist.
- Zenul_Abidin 2mo ago
  To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.
  - airstrike 2mo ago
    I'm not sure what you mean, so it's hard to agree someone would have laughed at it. It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate. This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  > It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.
  - maleldil 2mo ago
    Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.
    - matheusmoreira 2mo ago
etchalon 2mo ago
Transparency for something that was well known, reported on and legally documented?
Georgelemental 2mo ago
These are specifically the accounts of every registered candidate in the election (regardless of party affiliation).

by nomilk 2mo ago

Shank 2mo ago

> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I wonder how many normal people actually follow political accounts like this. I follow my local government because they sometimes tweet emergency info but I don’t follow candidates at all. I don’t follow political influencers either. It’s far too noisy.

Fnoord 2mo ago

> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting. But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That is the purpose of his action. Musk does the same with regards to other democracies, such as AfD in Germany.

carlosjobim 2mo ago
Your reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored. I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the public knowing which accounts are limited and why.
- mschuster91 2mo ago
  Well Musk has interfered in elections and riots before so it’s definitely a good idea to hold him under extremely close scrutiny. Being the world’s richest person and one of the most powerful influencers comes with responsibility, a responsibility that Musk has shown to be lacking.
  - carlosjobim 2mo ago
    Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.
    - Fnoord 2mo ago
      > That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show those parts of his machine. He still does shadowbanning, too. [1] https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on-brazilian-twitter-following-bolsonaro-defeat-e1876a45a137 https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on...
      - iamnothere 2mo ago
        Why not let them say whatever they want, but just cancel the election after the fact if you feel like the result endangers democracy? It’s worked before. It seems a little more honest and above-board, as well. No smoke-filled back rooms, just “election cancelled”.
        matheusmoreira 2mo ago
        Cancelling an election has "this is not the result I wanted, do it again" undertones.
bspammer 2mo ago
They’re not propagandists, they’re the official accounts of candidates in the election. I don’t see any problem with this as long as it’s applied to all candidates equally.
rayiner 2mo ago
These laws don't "protect democracy," even the most charitable interpretation of them is that they protect liberal values against democracy. They're inherently counter-majoritarian. Democracy doesn't mean liberalism. E.g. If Iran's ayatollah was elected by free and fair elections, but otherwise the country's laws and policies were the same, that would still be democracy.

NooneAtAll3 2mo ago

if anything, I would completely unsubscribe from US-controlled social platform before the election anywhere outside US

PearlRiver 2mo ago
Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Anyone in my country who is caught funded with US money may as well hang themselves they are electorally dead as a dodo. This to be fair is why the CIA had to move suitcases with money instead of bragging about it on Fox News...
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Ironic, isn't it?
- NooneAtAll3 2mo ago
  antidote to US propaganda is anti-US propaganda :) nationalism doesn't oppose US if US has bought all the nationalist movement (like f.e. in Ukraine circa 2014) - you get all the minuses of totalitarianism without all the bonuses of independence from US

airstrike 2mo ago

They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments about such decisions should revolve around whether the law says what the courts say it does or whether it was applied correctly—not whether the law should exist.

Zenul_Abidin 2mo ago
To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.
- airstrike 2mo ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, so it's hard to agree someone would have laughed at it. It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate. This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.
- maleldil 2mo ago
  Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.
  - matheusmoreira 2mo ago

etchalon 2mo ago

Transparency for something that was well known, reported on and legally documented?

Georgelemental 2mo ago

These are specifically the accounts of every registered candidate in the election (regardless of party affiliation).