Comment by jsight
Comment by jsight 10 months ago
This seems like a worthwhile fight. I'm surprised to see someone taking it up, though, most of the time company's just seem to comply with government mandated censorship.
Comment by jsight 10 months ago
This seems like a worthwhile fight. I'm surprised to see someone taking it up, though, most of the time company's just seem to comply with government mandated censorship.
There was no "coup attempt". There was a protest. Like many before it. Brazilians occupying Brasília buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. There's just no way you can convincingly claim that a thousand people armed with flags and bibles amounts to a coup or even an attempt at one. The only thing they did which you might object to was beg the military to launch an intervention.
The legal basis for that is a bit of brazilian law that dates back to our independence. It says the military is the so called "4th power", the "moderator power" which is supposed to intervene if the balance between the other three democratic powers gets too screwed up. That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in: unelected judge-kings that legislate and run the country. These protesters tried to invoke that bit of law by asking the brazilian military to intervene and put an end to it. They did not try to seize power for themselves, they asked the military to do it. The military refused to do it. Then they were arrested. Then the judges put them in a gulag.
Your comments have helped me in the past. Sad to see that you believe in this narrative.
Can we not use duck typing logic to interpret the politics of a nation?
They called the impeachment of one of our former presidents in 2016 a coup too. In fact, they still call it that to this day. It led to one of the Brasília protests to which I alluded in my reply. Amusingly, even back then there were calls for mililitary intervention. Those were never a big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–2016_protests_in_Brazil
What these judges did certainly looks like a coup to me. As far as I'm concerned, they gave themselves limitless powers and installed a dictatorship of the judiciary in this country. There's no point in electing representatives when these unelected judge-kings "creatively interpret" the laws they create however they want. What you're calling a coup, I see as a desperate failed attempt to restore order to this place.
See how fruitless it is? Everything looks like a coup to somebody.
Remember kids, free speech means that everyone is contractually obligated to algorithmically broadcast everything you say, even if it is literal terrorism, to as many people as possible. Failure to do this is literally 1984.
(/s)
So you think only government censorship is a speech violation?
Well cool! You'll happen to be on the right side in this case, because in this case the censor is a government.
Well, perhaps I layered in too much sarcasm, but the idea is that it's not a free speech violation for the government to say someone can't post on social media. That person is still free to say it, just not to have it broadcast to everyone.
"Censoring" literal misinformation is a bad thing now?
https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-c...
Brazil's judge lays it out quite reasonably?
I don't see any explanation in that article about what illegal "literal misinformation" Musk is allowing on X, so no it's not very reasonable.
I know in the post-truth era everyone can pretend their bubble is fact, but come on. Some things actually are misinformation.
Sure, somethings are actually misinformation. Nobody is denying that. The problem is giving the government the ability to determine what is and isn't misinformation.
If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? He could supress all the negative information about him calling it misinformation and prevent his misinformation from being banned.
Yes, because who gets to decide what is or is not misinformation?
Essentially, the larger the scope/influence is of the body of people deciding what speech to censor, the more dangerous it is to give them that power. This is irrespective of the actual information being censored.
Misinformation... According to whom?
You?
These partisan judge-kings?
Politicians who lie pathologically?
So who gets the honor of being the ministry of truth?
There goes good faith.
For the record, I don't really support that coward. I had all but forgotten about his existence until you posted this reply. My opinion of him is the only thing he's got going for him is the fact he's not a socialist, and that this alone makes him better than Lula or any of his communists any day of the week. Make no mistake: this is very faint praise. Being better than literal socialists and communists is a very low bar to clear.
You do realize that the "censorship" being mentioned is of literal terrorists?
Terrorism: the use of violence to achieve political aims (if you are not yourself a recognized nation).
This is exactly what these people did in their coup attempt. I for one would rather not have another coup organized on Twitter, thank you very much.
(and before anyone brings it up - even if someone works for the PR or leadership arms of a terrorist organization, rather than actually performing the violence personally, that does not mean they stop being a terrorist)