←back to thread

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

(www.theverge.com)
420 points rvz | 3 comments | 31 Aug 24 13:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.681s | source
Show context
joejohnson ◴[31 Aug 24 14:27 UTC] No.41409095[source]▶
Hopefully most people migrate to one of the alternatives not owned by an American oligarch
replies(1): >>41409158 #
adventured ◴[31 Aug 24 14:34 UTC] No.41409158[source]▶
There are no possible alternatives to US based services unless you enjoy extreme restrictions on speech. Europe has become a big no-go zone for speech over the past decade, they're outright hostile and authoritarian about it (with only a few exceptions among European nations). And the direction re liberalism and human rights in Europe is overwhelmingly hostile toward speech. And for South America, Africa and Asia you can entirely forget about it, there are no reliable speech protected locations in any of those.
replies(3): >>41409176 #>>41409219 #>>41409264 #
mstipetic[dead post] ◴[31 Aug 24 14:41 UTC] No.41409219[source]▶
[flagged]
tirant ◴[31 Aug 24 14:53 UTC] No.41409306[source]▶
The spread of lies or false information has always been the price the pay in order to have free speech.

It is the task of the individuals in free societies to discern the lies from the truth, or at least to choose their tools in doing so.

You’re lying to yourself if you believe you can have real human free speech with a system capable of censoring all lies.

replies(2): >>41409563 #>>41412941 #
mstipetic ◴[31 Aug 24 15:30 UTC] No.41409563[source]▶
Yes but once people mess up and choose the wrong thing it’s very hard to go back. There are plenty of examples of countries where bad actors have taken over all institutions and what then? There are not takesies backsies
replies(2): >>41413281 #>>41414766 #
1. EnigmaFlare ◴[01 Sep 24 06:25 UTC] No.41414766[source]▶
Do you consider anti-government Chinese people, such as Falun Gong members or general pro-democracy activists to be bad actors and that censoring their speech is important to protect institutions from them? I'm trying to point out that you can't simply decide who's good and who's bad. Censorship entrenches whoever happens to be in power regardless of their merits. Maybe you think democracy is the important part and autocratic governments are wrong to do censorship while democratic ones are wrong to allow free speech?
replies(1): >>41415561 #
2. a_victorp ◴[01 Sep 24 09:49 UTC] No.41415561[source]▶
That's a very black and white view of ways of restricting speech. Aside from the US most democracies have some sort of limits to free speech and not all of them have turned into autocracies. To counter your argument, absolute freedom of speech allows whoever controls the media to create narratives and manipulate public opinion without consequences
replies(1): >>41420534 #
3. EnigmaFlare ◴[01 Sep 24 21:25 UTC] No.41420534[source]▶
What's wrong with manipulating public opinion? People aren't complete idiots and are still responsible for their own beliefs and how they vote. They'll only believe lies that they want to believe. The Soviet Union used to control all the media and its people famously didn't believe what it told them.