←back to thread

420 points rvz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
avsteele ◴[] No.41418351[source]
At this point, I'm only mildly surprised by the pro-censorship sentiments which are prevalent here at HN. Still, for those with an open mind...

Read the NY times article; it is not amazing well done but serves to show how unaccountable the orders of the judge are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/world/americas/brazil-x-b...

Then read the orders from the judge (as claimed by X). "Secretly ban this sitting senator within a few hours"

https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...

replies(2): >>41426753 #>>41426781 #
1. ◴[] No.41426753[source]