(www.theverge.com)

420 points rvz | 3 comments | 31 Aug 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.631s | source

Show context

nickpsecurity ◴[31 Aug 24 14:35 UTC] No.41409175[source]▶

One of the linked articles said it boiled down to X being ordered to censor political opponents of those in power. They chose not to. I’m glad.

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.

replies(5): >>41409222 #>>41409280 #>>41410649 #>>41414032 #>>41418351 #

throwadobe ◴[01 Sep 24 03:30 UTC] No.41414032[source]▶

>>41409175 #

It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.

replies(3): >>41414182 #>>41414802 #>>41418371 #

paulvnickerson ◴[01 Sep 24 04:03 UTC] No.41414182[source]▶

>>41414032 #

Including a sitting senator and a pastor... [1]

[1] https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479

replies(1): >>41414204 #

1. throwadobe ◴[01 Sep 24 04:08 UTC] No.41414204[source]▶

>>41414182 #

Are senators or pastors above the law?

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.

replies(1): >>41414590 #