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.
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
My account is rate limited to ~5 posts/hour so I don't plan on recreating that thread here.
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_e...
Go read the decision: 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.
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.
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-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/phot...
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.
One thing I’ll mention: after Musk acquired X in 2022, they were engaged in a lawsuit against the government of India in 2023 to fight censorship orders, that they ultimately lost (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66083645). Not that it matters because India ended up passing various regulations (legally) that give their agencies various powers to censor.
Note that in Brazil, no new legislation or constitutional amendment was passed that would give this one Supreme Court justice this power to censor, ban, or arrest. Also note that the orders aren’t from the Supreme Court but one person sitting on it, Alexandre de Moraes.
Moraes does seem to be acting like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is dangerous. But then again Elon acts like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is also dangerous, so I don't really mind that X is getting banned. I'd feel completely differently if it were Mastodon or even some other commercial network over which a single person doesn't have an iron grip.
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-twitte...
[2] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04...
[3] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja...
[4] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitte...
[5] https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319...
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).
This is not exactly true, so let me explain it. Moraes is himself a justice on the Supreme Court. He was not granted authority by it. His own claim actually acknowledges that no new laws (either legislation or constitutional amendments) were passed to give him this power. Instead his claimed power rests on something more confusing and again, illegal. Brazil has two top level courts - an electoral court and a Supreme Court, for simplification and use of common international language. These two are separate courts and are supposed to have separation of powers. When de Moraes was president of the electoral court, he proposed in October 2022 to the electoral court that he be granted the unilateral power (as a single person) to remove online content as part of his role in the other court, the federal court (where he was inaugurated in 2017) - this is all easy to verify and there are many sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_de_Moraes).
Obviously, it is a total violation of the separation of powers for him to sit on one court and grant himself powers that he can use through the other court. Because no new legislation is involved, it also violates the fundamental role of the judicial system, since the creation of laws is part of the legislative power in Brazil.
> But then again Elon acts like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is also dangerous, so I don't really mind that X is getting banned
I don’t condone Elon’s erratic behavior. However, I think generally he has been more on the side of free speech and civil liberty than the previous leadership of Twitter. For example, after Musk’s acquisition, Twitter tried hard to stop censorship in India through a lawsuit against the government that they battled in 2023. They did not succeed, in part because India passed laws that legalized censorship unfortunately. But at least Twitter/X tried. As far as I can tell, they have been consistent with their public policy of following local laws when it comes to content moderation and censorship. But in Brazil’s case, the orders appear to be illegal (example: https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...).
Whatever his demeanor is though, he is a private individual, and his actions matter less than actions of the state. Alexandre de Moraes is a Supreme Court justice. Whether Elon antagonizes him or not, he should remain neutral, stick to the law as written, and lean in favor of civil liberties as a default anytime there is something controversial or ambiguous.
Your comment isn’t kind, and is calling me names. I am not sure why you cannot just calmly speak to the issue instead of saying that I am buying into “bot-fed rhetoric” or spreading misinformation. The guidelines explicitly say to assume good faith.
> Moraes has the power to decide on this matter and the court will review his decision collectively in due time.
The problem is Moraes was not granted this power through constitutional amendment or law. Feel free to point at something specific otherwise. But here is the breakdown of why these orders are unconstitutional and illegal:
https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...
If that is not good enough, look at Article 5 Title IX of the Brazil constitution from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017, which guarantees the following right to all Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country:
> expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license
Posting on Twitter is clearly “communication activity” and therefore must be free of censorship. There are numerous other parts of the constitution that are also violated by the notion of a single justice issuing orders in secret. You can read through the page with the constitutional text if you wish.
> Arguing that this is a political move doesn't even make sense. How does banning X help Lula?
De Moraes was banning content and accounts that belong to the political opposition against Lula. Banning X, a service that provides equal access to social media to all parties, is equivalent to only allowing services that continue censorship of the opposition party. That is directly favorable to Lula.
I have no idea whether you're right or wrong on the topic—actually I don't even know what side you're on, or even what the sides are—but your posts have repeatedly crossed the line into being abusive and that's not cool.
I'm sure you can make your substantive points thoughtfully if you choose to, so please do that instead.
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.
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".
Also, whether some action breaks your idea of separation of powers doesn’t make it illegal (that’s for the judiciary to determine). You may think it’s I democratic but that’s a separate matter (I think a lot of things in the US are undemocratic, especially considering we elected a anti-democracy corrupt businessman as president and may elected him again)
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.
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.
Discussion about would-be coups seems to be fraught... probably best to avoid the term ?? I'm remembering those funny (for an outsider) images of the January 6th USA Capitol invaders seemingly being lost at what they were supposed to be doing once in the building... (though this took a darker turn when we learned, much later, that Trump did not show up because his own security service prevented him to !)