Twitter thread explaining the situation with Brazil and Twitter (This is an ongoing situation, so details are very likely subject to change and information may be inaccurate) TLDR: Brazil demands Twitter do something about the rampant misinformation, hate speech, and insurrectionist rhetoric on the site, with Elon only antagonizing Brazil rather than comply. This escalated overtime until Brazil threatened to arrest a legal representative in Twitters Brazilian office, due to the site not doing anything against users trying to undermine the government. In response, Elon closes the office with Brazil sending an ultimatum to fix the issues, or have the site blocked from the country. Elon Musk does essentially nothing, besides spread more misinformation and try to incite more insurrectionist rhetoric in Brazilians.
So now Twitters lost its 6th largest consumer because Elon can't be bothered to fix the site.
What you just said has absolutely no substance whatsoever and proves nothing except for your EDS.
Its honestly deranged. The Brazilian government is the one threatening 9 thousand Real fines. Theyre the one's pulling the plug because they didn't grt what they want. But nah, lets blame Elon since he's a hair to the right of Stalin.
This escalated overtime until Brazil threatened to arrest a legal representative in Twitters Brazilian office, due to the site not doing anything against users trying to undermine the government.
More information: Twitter removed their legal representative in their Brazilian office after this, without appointing a replacement. Brazilian law requires a legal representative for foreign companies, without one Twitter cannot operate in Brazil. If anyone's more well versed in Brazilian laws and other subjects, feel free to add more info or add corrections if needed. Also, Brazils election year is very soon (October 6th - 27th) so the government has been cracking down on misinformation due to the risk it poses during elections and in general.
Also, Brazils election year is very soon (October 6th - 27th) so the government has been cracking down on misinformation due to the risk it poses during elections and in general.
So the judge is basically committing election interference. Just like a certain unmentionable laptop.
Being a "free speech absolutist" does allow including that stuff because those terms are entirely subjective.
No, because even "free speech" has to follow the law, and Twitter under Musk became a cesspool of hate speech, misinformation, Russian propaganda and Nazi shit, but Musk being rich, he could avoir the consequences of his actions for a long time. Brazil is only the first country to tell him to get his shit together and moderate his site's content so it doesn't look like /pol on a bad day everyday, and also the first one to call on his bluff when he threw his usual temper tantrum of pretending that his site his an essential service that no one can survive without, which it's not.
If anything I hope that it'll incite more country to really call out Musk's bullshit until either he gets his shit together or X fall into the gutter where it belongs.
...and Twitter under Musk became a cesspool of hate speech, misinformation, Russian propaganda and Nazi shit...
Ignoring how you're bias against Elon is at play here, none of this would be illegal under US law, where Twitter is headquartered and the 1st Amendment is in play.
Brazil's government can demand whatever they want, just like that EU representative did when Elon did that interview with Trump. And just like the former case, Elon can, as majority owner, tell the latter to pound sand.
Ignoring how you're bias against Elon is at play here, none of this would be illegal under US law, where Twitter is headquartered and the 1st Amendment is in play.
Brazil's government can demand whatever they want, just like that EU representative did when Elon did that interview with Trump. And just like the former case, Elon can, as majority owner, tell the latter to pound sand.
Sure Musk can ignore their laws but it's also always been within a government's power to determine who can operate or provide services within it, so it's well within their right to ban Twitter regardless of the politics involved in them making that decision.
As for the legality in the US, it'll be interesting in the future what social media companies do with the content they host and/or on content curation. There has currently been a revived case against TikTok which involved the death of a 10-year-old kid who had received recommended videos for the "blackout challenge" where you'd self-suffocate and record yourself passing out. The case was revived due to a recent Supreme Court ruling where they had ruled that a platform's algorithm reflects "editorial judgements" as it is a the company that determines how it is compiled and displayed, therefore content curation using algorithms is now recognized as speech by the company itself. As it is speech by the company, it is therefore not protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decent Act of 1996, that which has historically protected social media sites from the third-party content they've hosted.
Ignoring how you're bias against Elon is at play here, none of this would be illegal under US law, where Twitter is headquartered and the 1st Amendment is in play.
Brazil's government can demand whatever they want, just like that EU representative did when Elon did that interview with Trump. And just like in the former case, Elon can, as majority owner, tell the latter to pound sand.
The Muskrat has been defending Apartheid for years. He's going to learn the hard way that he can't have his cake and eat it too. It's rules for thee, not for me with him. If you don't like him or even criticise him, you're getting banned unless you delete the criticism. So in a way, it serves him right for being a total (and pardon my French) complete narcissistic, egotistical, prick with a punchable face to boot and if he doesn't comply, many more will leave the morally bankrupt hellhole for greener pastures. You don't miss the water in the well till it dries up.
The Muskrat has been defending Apartheid for years. He's going to learn the hard way that he can't have his cake and eat it too. It's rules for thee, not for me with him. If you don't like him or even criticise him, you're getting banned unless you delete the criticism. So in a way, it serves him right for being a total (and pardon my French) complete narcissistic, egotistical, prick with a punchable face to boot and if he doesn't comply, many more will leave the morally bankrupt hellhole for greener pastures. You don't miss the water in the well till it dries up.
I wouldn't say it's "ignoring" a countries' laws. Like I said, it has no obligation to follow Brazilian law since it's not headquartered in Brazil. Besides, I believe there has been talks to negotiate a deal with the Brazilian government. And with the way Elon's been rather smug about it on X, I'm willing to belive something (likely a payoff/bribe) is going to get worked out.
As for TikTok, that's a case that won't really go anywhere since it's owned by the Chinese State, even if there's an "independent" branch with an office in the US. The amount of lobbying ByteDance does on the MONTHLY will kill any court case that comes against it or TikTok.
Twitter thread explaining the situation with Brazil and Twitter (This is an ongoing situation, so details are very likely subject to change and information may be inaccurate) TLDR: Brazil demands Twitter do something about the rampant misinformation, hate speech, and insurrectionist rhetoric on the site, with Elon only antagonizing Brazil rather than comply. This escalated overtime until Brazil threatened to arrest a legal representative in Twitters Brazilian office, due to the site not doing anything against users trying to undermine the government. In response, Elon closes the office with Brazil sending an ultimatum to fix the issues, or have the site blocked from the country. Elon Musk does essentially nothing, besides spread more misinformation and try to incite more insurrectionist rhetoric in Brazilians.
So now Twitters lost its 6th largest consumer because Elon can't be bothered to fix the site.
well, if the election wasn;t brazenly stolen and the incumbent didn;t immediately arrest and jail the actual winner of the election this wouldn;t be happening.
Eboreg said: Being a "free speech absolutist" does allow including that stuff because those terms are entirely subjective.
At the very least, I don't see how you can justify intentionally spreading information that is either unverified or known to be false and have that be protectable speech
That's easy. The point of free speech is to be able to think for one's self and express your beliefs regardless of evidence to your claim. It's built on the foundation that people can thunk for themselves and do not need a governing body to tell them what to believe. Once you have ruling parties dictating what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.
That's easy. The point of free speech is to be able to think for one's self and express your beliefs regardless of evidence to your claim. It's built on the foundation that people can thunk for themselves and do not need a governing body to tell them what to believe. Once you have ruling parties dictating what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.
This is a world where false information can be quickly and deliberately spread and lead to actual harm to people or peoples, the idea that we would punish the people acting out on false information and not the people spreading it is insane. This isn't free speech, this is manipulation.
Free speech runs on the faith that people are capable of thinking for themselves, not about what is good or bad dictated by the State. That is why the 1st Amendment and all of the original Amendments were not "We give permission to the people to have these rights" but "The government shall not infringe upon them". Faith was place upon the citizenry to use their rights wisely and has for the most part worked. To civil rights movements, to anti-war protests, to anti-government rallies; they all run the risk of spiraling out of control, yet here we are, still picking ourselves up and moving forward.
I can tell you have a very cynical view on the world, but that's, thankfully, not how most people see it. Free Speech can be a dangerous tool, but it's still worth having and it's still very much worth standing your ground for.
Running anything off a vague idea of faith in the face of existing abuse seems like a cop-out to me. Applying an American standard of free speech for other countries with stronger standards against deliberate misinformation is another issue. People act in bad-faith and this can be seen in the various abuses and issues in America, let's not pretend that me deciding to defame someone for personal gain is the same as me criticizing the government.
And you're free to feel that way. It's an emotional motivation, one that requires a rather pessimistic view of the human condition. But our recent past has proven that we can trust the vast, vast, VAST majority people to take in information and not tear each other apart, even if we argue for an hour or two.
EDIT: Shout out to whoever went through 8 months of my comments to give me straight downvotes. That cracks me up. lol
At the very least, I don't see how you can justify intentionally spreading information that is either unverified or known to be false and have that be protectable speech
Western scientists deliberately signal boosted Lysenko's misinformation in order to discredit him. Look it up. Also, the Streisand effect is a thing. What that means is that trying to suppress misinformation is going to lead it spreading more. Your ideas for stopping the spread of misinformation are counterintuitively just going to spread it even more.
EDIT: Remember what I said about too close-minded to admit that I'm right and too stupid to prove why I'm wrong? Your dislikes mean nothing if your reason for them is never said.
More information: Also, Brazils election year is very soon (October 6th - 27th) so the government has been cracking down on misinformation due to the risk it poses during elections and in general.
The court order (Shared by twitter themselves) asked for the banning/suspension of 7 accounts associated with the spreading of disinformation (I also believe they had previous association with the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, but since I can't understand Brazilian I can't confirm). Also as a sidenote, Twitter just revealed the full legal names and CPF number (essentially social security number) of the users they were asked to ban... And since they're Brazilian, those 7 accounts can't even use Twitter, so they basically go banned anyways alongside the rest of Brazil.
You were going to your own comments after you made this post and downvoting them yourself. Aside from that, there has been no mass downvoting of your previous posts.
You were going to your own comments after you made this post and downvoting them yourself. Aside from that, there has been no mass downvoting of your previous posts.
You were going to your own comments after you made this post and downvoting them yourself. Aside from that, there has been no mass downvoting of your previous posts.
You were going to your own comments after you made this post and downvoting them yourself. Aside from that, there has been no mass downvoting of your previous posts.
This is so funny. My goodness, get some sunshine during your ban my brother.
EDIT: The man trying to pass off his own misinformation as truth in an argument about misinformation is WILD. Not sure if brilliance or wildly dumb.
And you're free to feel that way. It's an emotional motivation, one that requires a rather pessimistic view of the human condition. But our recent past has proven that we can trust the vast, vast, VAST majority people to take in information and not tear each other apart, even if we argue for an hour or two.
EDIT: Shout out to whoever went through 8 months of my comments to give me straight downvotes. That cracks me up. lol
You mean how the massive misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic absolutely didn't led to many people refusing to be vaccinated or rely on useless alternative cures that led to a mortality rate five times superior to vaccinated populations?
Or how the massive disinformation about the last POTUS election didn't led to the MAGA people trying to make a coup?
I can tell you have a very cynical view on the world...
Not cynical, just informed by legions of bad actors knowingly spreading disinformation in order to manipulate public opinion. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either been living under a rock for the past decade or is deliberately supporting the propagandists by sowing their own disinformation.
Considering your pathetic attempt to defame those disagreeing with you here, I guess it's safe to say that you're part of the latter group.
This is a world where false information can be quickly and deliberately spread and lead to actual harm to people or peoples, the idea that we would punish the people acting out on false information and not the people spreading it is insane. This isn't free speech, this is manipulation.
Most of the people murdered in the 20th century were killed by their own governments who went to great lengths covering up their misdeeds, both domestically and abroad. Until internet trolls commit a few genocides, I'd err on the side that's against a government's ability to control information.
I'll try to provide a less naive argument for keeping the government from controlling speech.
Misinformation and disinformation is definitely having a huge negative impact on the world and it is increasingly getting harder to fight against. I understand it can be tempting to make laws restricting what people can and can't say. But that only works if the government is responsible and benevolent. And there's a risk of them overstepping even then. So maybe you think "No problem, our government isn't corrupt and would never use it for nefarious purposes." Well, when you give power to people in the government, you're also giving it to their successors. And you can't guarantee the successors won't have malicious intentions. Once you give them the power, it's very hard to take it back. What do we do when the government no longer needs that power? And how do you convince people when they've become accustomed to the new status quo?
This isn't specifically about Musk or Brazil, just a general observation (and no conspiracy theories). I still remember the controversy over the Patriot Act. The issues were similar, but with accusations of 4th amendment violations as well.
You mean how the massive misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic absolutely didn't led to many people refusing to be vaccinated or rely on useless alternative cures that led to a mortality rate five times superior to vaccinated populations?
Or how the massive disinformation about the last POTUS election didn't led to the MAGA people trying to make a coup?
If you want to play that game, how about the "disinformation" that COVID-19 was capable of human-to-human transmission or that it leaked from a lab or that the current POTUS was potentially selling his influence to China while he was the VP?
Oh wait, those were real. But you didn't know that until it was too late because you weren't actually willing to look into the evidence.
Oh... Saladofstones, you are more than free to scrutinize my dislikes. I still maintain what I said about the people giving them to me.
So, with Brazil banned from Twitter, what does this mean for the site?
Nothing, really. You can still post and browse like usual. We don't care about politics much in this site, and arts depicting political things can still be uploaded and get approved as long as they don't break the rules.
The court order (Shared by twitter themselves) asked for the banning/suspension of 7 accounts associated with the spreading of disinformation (I also believe they had previous association with the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, but since I can't understand Brazilian I can't confirm). Also as a sidenote, Twitter just revealed the full legal names and CPF number (essentially social security number) of the users they were asked to ban... And since they're Brazilian, those 7 accounts can't even use Twitter, so they basically go banned anyways alongside the rest of Brazil.
Im not liking the term Disinformation, since they dont define the Elements to the crime of Disinformation makes me think its a law like disturbing the peace. which has a blanket Elements that could fit into multiple different crimes. Disinformation as a crime has not been established enough for the elements to truly be understood and used.
But it also sets a precedent that if you control the media in your country you can also control information. And then you can control what is disinformation.
I dislike how vague the law is. it should be explained further so that way judges don't have to spend too much time trying to interpret the law.
Twitter thread explaining the situation with Brazil and Twitter (This is an ongoing situation, so details are very likely subject to change and information may be inaccurate) TLDR: Brazil demands Twitter do something about the rampant misinformation, hate speech, and insurrectionist rhetoric on the site, with Elon only antagonizing Brazil rather than comply. This escalated overtime until Brazil threatened to arrest a legal representative in Twitters Brazilian office, due to the site not doing anything against users trying to undermine the government. In response, Elon closes the office with Brazil sending an ultimatum to fix the issues, or have the site blocked from the country. Elon Musk does essentially nothing, besides spread more misinformation and try to incite more insurrectionist rhetoric in Brazilians.
So now Twitters lost its 6th largest consumer because Elon can't be bothered to fix the site.
Correction* Elon Musk did not shut down the site, the "Supreme" did What happened in brazil was the "Supreme" breaking the law trying to make X ban accounts with no proporse, he didnt followed the internet's conduct and threatened to jail the legal representative person of X in brazil.
Basically, the "Supreme" didnt follow the Brazil's law at all
