←back to thread

420 points rvz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
nickpsecurity ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.41414032[source]
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 #
insane_dreamer ◴[] No.41418371[source]
The problem with Elon is that he's decided to pick and choose which countries he will comply with local legislation on, and which ones he won't. So India, Turkey, he did. Brazil, he didn't.

Maybe the Supreme Court in Brazil is "wrong" and "corrupt" where legislators in India and Turkey are not, but knowing a fair bit about all three countries, I doubt very much that to be the case. So then it's a business decision -- or more like a "whatever pisses Elon off" decision, which in the end is just as "corrupt" as your typical corrupt dictator who acts on whatever pisses them off.

replies(1): >>41418572 #
blackeyeblitzar ◴[] No.41418572[source]
It’s a question of what is legal in each country. The censorship orders in Australia and India and Turkey complied with local laws so X stuck to their policy of following them. I detest censoring and authoritarianism in general, but X has publicly stated their policy is to comply with laws in each area.

One thing I’ll mention: after Musk acquired X in 2022, they were engaged in a lawsuit against the government of India in 2023 to fight censorship orders, that they ultimately lost (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66083645). Not that it matters because India ended up passing various regulations (legally) that give their agencies various powers to censor.

Note that in Brazil, no new legislation or constitutional amendment was passed that would give this one Supreme Court justice this power to censor, ban, or arrest. Also note that the orders aren’t from the Supreme Court but one person sitting on it, Alexandre de Moraes.

replies(3): >>41418628 #>>41418641 #>>41419186 #
1. nateglims ◴[] No.41419186[source]
Courts are part of the legal system in most of the world. It’s kind of sovcit to say otherwise.