←back to thread

420 points rvz | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.003s | source
Show context
dont_forget_me ◴[] No.41409260[source]
It saddens me the Brasil banned X because of racism, anti-semitism and hate-speech. But X is still not banned in the west.

At some point we have to come to this realization in the west that absolutism is never the answer. Free speech is good upto certain extent, the way it was at Twitter before the rich and powerful took over. Moreover, it is content moderation and it doesn't have anything to do with free speech.

replies(11): >>41409316 #>>41409350 #>>41409360 #>>41409361 #>>41410010 #>>41410068 #>>41410207 #>>41410248 #>>41413222 #>>41413682 #>>41414564 #
chipdart ◴[] No.41410207[source]
> It saddens me the Brasil banned X because of racism, anti-semitism and hate-speech. But X is still not banned in the west.

From what I've read, that was not exactly what's happening with Elon Musk's Twitter in Brasil.

From what I've gathered, Brasil informed Elon Musk's Twitter that in order to comply with Brasil's law regarding disinformation, libel, and propaganda, they had to appoint a legal representative to be contacted by Brasil's judicial system to address reports of illegal activity. In response, Elon Musk basically ordered Twitter to dissolve all of its corporate presence in Brasil to retaliate against the demand, thinking that without a legal presence in the country that Twitter would magically become immune to Brasil's jurisdiction.

Except that Brasil's judicial system does have some tools and the means to prosecute uncooperative entities, particularly private individuals who hide behind corporate structures. Consequently, Brasil not only blocked Elon Musk's Twitter from Brasil due to Elon Musk's purposely uncooperative attitude but also has the legal means to go after the private individuals behind the decision to antagonize Brasil. Consequently, they enforced the consequences of Elon Musk's actions to Elon Musk's property in Brasil, such as Starlink.

Overall, this case is only orthogonally related to free speech. At it's core there's only one thing: Elon Musk making ill-advised decisions (reportedly against legal advise from his own legal representatives and in opposition to the actions of his legal representatives) and is now fabricating stories to distract people from the fact that all he is experiencing is the consequences of his own actions, which would be extremely easily avoided if he just listened to his own lawyers.

replies(2): >>41413314 #>>41414433 #
1. WrongAssumption ◴[] No.41414433[source]
“It closed its office in Brazil earlier this month, saying its representative had been threatened with arrest if she did not comply with orders it described as "censorship" - as well as illegal under Brazilian law.

Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.

He said the company's legal representatives would be held liable if any accounts were reactivated.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o.amp

They wanted Musk to appoint a legal representative so they could throw them in jail.

replies(1): >>41415708 #
2. a_victorp ◴[] No.41415708[source]
They wanted him to appoint a representative so it could represent the company (and be held liable, in case the company does anything illegal) as mandates Brazilian law. As soon as Elon decided to not have a representative, Twitter's operation in Brazil became Illegal

Other companies, such as Telegram, also have faced the same and they simply appointed a representative. If you research you'll see that no representative has been jailed, so this whole "they would have jailed the representative" narrative is bs

replies(1): >>41454173 #
3. WrongAssumption ◴[] No.41454173[source]
Yeah, it’s a legally mandated fall guy. The Brazilian legal representative has no control over what X does. So he appoints one, Elon refuses to ban accounts, and that guy goes to jail for it. It’s madness.