←back to thread

Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

(www.theverge.com)
420 points rvz | 8 comments | 31 Aug 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.283s | source | bottom
Show context
dgfitz ◴[31 Aug 24 23:11 UTC] No.41412739[source]▶
Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol.

So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part.

Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge.

The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian citizens to starlink, something about relating star link to x. so musk said “well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection.” Or something like that.

Edit: blackeyedblitzar child comment of this has better information.

replies(4): >>41412952 #>>41414574 #>>41415565 #>>41417531 #
blackeyeblitzar ◴[31 Aug 24 23:52 UTC] No.41412952[source]▶
Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech.

The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.

Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.

replies(15): >>41412986 #>>41412993 #>>41413052 #>>41413070 #>>41413456 #>>41413470 #>>41413479 #>>41413559 #>>41413745 #>>41413747 #>>41414287 #>>41414371 #>>41414388 #>>41414861 #>>41423758 #
croes ◴[01 Sep 24 00:18 UTC] No.41413070[source]▶
Isn't it about the people who invaded government buildings on January 8 2923 because they claimed Jair Bolsonaro won the election much like the January 6 attack in the USA after Trump lost?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta...

The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military?

I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases.

And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro.

And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-tw...

replies(2): >>41413364 #>>41413566 #
SpicyLemonZest ◴[01 Sep 24 01:10 UTC] No.41413364[source]▶
As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.
replies(4): >>41413570 #>>41414337 #>>41414715 #>>41414756 #
1. tootie ◴[01 Sep 24 02:22 UTC] No.41413704[source]▶
They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.
replies(2): >>41413731 #>>41413925 #
2. throwaway48476 ◴[01 Sep 24 02:29 UTC] No.41413731[source]▶
And what would happen if they did not comply?

It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I

replies(1): >>41417846 #
3. SpicyLemonZest ◴[01 Sep 24 02:50 UTC] No.41413837[source]▶
I'm not sure what you intend for me to infer from this context-free link. It doesn't seem to include any examples of the government ordering Twitter to ban certain accounts, although it does have a few of the suggestions regarding content I mentioned.
4. blackeyeblitzar ◴[01 Sep 24 03:06 UTC] No.41413925[source]▶
If you look at the revelations from Zuckerberg‘s letter this week, you will see that they were not good faith recommendations. They were highly aggressive demands made in forceful ways. Remember, the administration that issued these demands is also in control of the agencies that regulate the same company. For example, the FTC, who could determine that the company is acting anti-competitively or whatever else. They are in a position of power above this company, and therefore, even if they had made the suggestion in a friendly way, it would still be from a position of power that could compel them.
replies(1): >>41417854 #
5. tootie ◴[01 Sep 24 15:46 UTC] No.41417846{3}[source]▶
That's a stretch. They could have decided twitter was non compliant and started treating them a little less gently but would they order content be removed or issue fines or some other direct punishment? Probably not.
replies(1): >>41417986 #
6. tootie ◴[01 Sep 24 15:47 UTC] No.41417854{3}[source]▶
Good faith meaning they believed the analysis of likely disinformation was correct and not politically motivated.
7. throwaway48476 ◴[01 Sep 24 16:04 UTC] No.41417986{4}[source]▶
This is a failure of imagination.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-ag...

replies(1): >>41418615 #
8. tootie ◴[01 Sep 24 17:26 UTC] No.41418615{5}[source]▶
Yeah, this article is really very imaginative.