←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: 0.744s | 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 #
dmix ◴[01 Sep 24 00:53 UTC] No.41413281[source]▶
And you think censorship will solve this? You’ll just get a different sort of monster. One that probably appeals to your worldview in the short term because you fit the typical person you think will be controlling it forever and you think the scope will somehow to be constrained to a small group of things you don’t like.

Well intentioned, but extremely naive. Something our society will sadly have to relearn every century or so.

replies(1): >>41413563 #
meiraleal ◴[01 Sep 24 01:51 UTC] No.41413563[source]▶
> And you think censorship will solve this?

A media company being punished isn't censorship , media companies aren't above the law.

replies(1): >>41418109 #
1. stale2002 ◴[01 Sep 24 16:21 UTC] No.41418109[source]▶
> A media company

Text from the 1st amendment: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

You see that part that says "The press"? Thats what a media company is.

Yes, if the government punishes "The press" for its speech, and threatens it with legal action, that is by definition something that effects free speech and is censorship.

Definitionally, I cannot think of something that could be more accurately be described as censorship.

replies(1): >>41418907 #
2. meiraleal ◴[01 Sep 24 18:06 UTC] No.41418907[source]▶
> Yes, if the government punishes "The press" for its speech

That wasn't the case, the case was "the press" covering criminals. Being the press don't give a company free pass to commit crimes and Xitter is paying for that.

PS: "1st amendment" is an American term that doesn't mean anything outside of american jurisdiction (and maybe not even inside, see Tiktok).

replies(1): >>41422324 #
3. stale2002 ◴[02 Sep 24 03:15 UTC] No.41422324[source]▶
> That wasn't the case, the case was "the press" covering criminals.

If the government makes it illegal to publish certain things, that would mean that it is both a crime and censorship. So yes, that would be the case and my previous statement applies.

The government making it illegal for the press to publish certain things is definitionally what censorship is. There is literally no more clear example of what censorship is than that.