←back to thread

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

(www.theverge.com)
420 points rvz | 6 comments | 31 Aug 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.798s | 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 #
throwadobe ◴[01 Sep 24 01:27 UTC] No.41413456[source]▶
> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech

Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.

Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.

replies(2): >>41413562 #>>41413634 #
1. gmerc ◴[01 Sep 24 02:32 UTC] No.41413754[source]▶
> Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino.

Right. Everyone can see that.

replies(1): >>41413928 #
2. riverrunn01 ◴[01 Sep 24 02:49 UTC] No.41413831[source]▶
You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all. WE have a specific bill that regulate specifically the internet and social media. We have a penal code that assure that freedom of speech it's not absolute. You do not have the right to be racis (for instance if you wear a nazi flag or post nazi content you go to jail). In 2021 the supreme court established a dept exactly to study and create legal mechanisms to understand and protect disinformation (specially on electoral period): https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ And also a vast jurisprudence on the subject on many instances of Brazilian Legal System: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprude...
replies(2): >>41414924 #>>41414948 #
3. 3x35r22m4u ◴[01 Sep 24 02:57 UTC] No.41413876[source]▶
Please stop. The moment you mentioned started mixing the Executive with the Judiciary ("has support of sitting president") it became clear you are not providing pure facts, but an opinion.

The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions; X didn't comply; fines were issued; fines were never paid by X; the justice started using all available legal tools to fulfill the previous mandates (content removal and/or pecuniary penalties).

replies(1): >>41414927 #
4. carlosjobim ◴[01 Sep 24 07:10 UTC] No.41414924[source]▶
> You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all.

Seems like the poster understands the law part fine, but not the rule part.

5. blackeyeblitzar ◴[01 Sep 24 07:10 UTC] No.41414927[source]▶
> Please stop. The moment you mentioned started mixing the Executive with the Judiciary ("has support of sitting president") it became clear you are not providing pure facts, but an opinion.

If you are going to post here, you need to engage in good faith. A five second search could have brought you to numerous articles quoting Lula where he supports Alexandre de Moraes’s actions and criticizes Musk. So yes, the executive and the judiciary are mixed because one is lending support publicly to the other. Those are the FACTS.

> The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions

It doesn’t matter if accounts promote “hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions” (which just sounds like hyperbole for criticizing political processes) - that isn’t sufficient grounds for state enforced censorship in any free and democratic society. If you want to admit that Brazil has turned authoritarian, that’s one thing. But these convoluted narratives are wildly inaccurate and unconvincing.

6. blackeyeblitzar ◴[01 Sep 24 07:15 UTC] No.41414948[source]▶
A bill cannot override constitutionally granted civil liberties. The penal code is secondary to the constitution. Regardless, no law was passed to give de Moraes the powers he now claims. He even literally said that his power comes from the electoral court that he was president of, not from a constitutional amendment or legislation. Do you think the judiciary should be able to grant itself powers arbitrarily? Does it make logical sense for De Moraes to serve on one court that grants himself powers in a different court?