It does indeed look like BlueSky overtly celebrating a nation-state banning Twitter, their competitor.
replies(1):
I do have to ask where the equivalent free-speech outrage is that Musk is overtly campaigning for a political party via X.
Also your comment is misinformation - you know, the kind of thing this judge in Brazil would send you to jail for. Specifically this part:
> X went so far as to close its office so as not to have to answer legal orders
They closed their office because Alexandre de Moraes, the judge issuing these unilateral censorship orders in secret without public transparency, also decided to threaten Twitter/X’s legal representative with fines and jail time. He also threatened to seize their personal financial assets (and already froze those accounts). So X had no choice but to close their Brazilian office to avoid having their employees or representation threatened and jailed.
All that without the possibility of your defense because he has been acting as the judge and the jury.
So much for free speech.
Seems like even Masnick agrees, albeit begrudgingly, that this judge is an authoritarian. Where I cannot agree with Masnick is the implication that Musk and this man are somehow both equally wrong.
A government official, no less a judge, should be held to a far higher standard as his actions impact hundreds of millions of people. And as we can see by his unprecedented order banning VPNs, he clearly lacks the circumspection and self-reflection necessary to hold such an important office.
If the measure of a high standard is the number of people impacted, how many people would you say are affected by Musk, or the other private owners of social networks?
I'm not sure what he was asked to censor, but my guess is that it's content that aligns with his political agenda and that is why he is resisting.
That sounds a lot like copium to justify an authoritarian action by the state because it benefits you personally.