←back to thread

420 points rvz | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.005s | source
Show context
dgfitz ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
throwaway48476[dead post] ◴[] No.41413570[source]
[flagged]
tootie ◴[] 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 #
throwaway48476 ◴[] 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 #
1. tootie ◴[] No.41417846[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 #
2. throwaway48476 ◴[] No.41417986[source]
This is a failure of imagination.

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

replies(1): >>41418615 #
3. tootie ◴[] No.41418615[source]
Yeah, this article is really very imaginative.