Comment by jsight

Comment by jsight 5 hours ago

29 replies

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.

o11c 4 hours ago

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)

  • matheusmoreira an hour ago

    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.

    • o11c an hour ago

      If it looks like a coup and quacks like a coup, don't tell me it's actually a sedan.

  • andsoitis 4 hours ago

    > you do realize that the "censorship" being mentioned is of literal terrorists?

    I don't follow this very closely, but I wonder: if the Brazilian state or justice system consider them terrorists, what is getting in the way of bringing them to justice?

    • o11c 4 hours ago

      Their version of January 6 took place after ours, so they're still going through early stages of the process. At least 86 have been convicted and sent to prison so far, likely low-level stooges since the higher-ups take longer.

  • infotainment 4 hours ago

    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)

    • holmesworcester 4 hours ago

      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.

      • infotainment 4 hours ago

        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.

IntelMiner 4 hours ago

"Censoring" literal misinformation is a bad thing now?

  • johndevor 4 hours ago

    Putting "literal" in front of a word does not clarify the definition of that word.

  • HideousKojima 3 hours ago

    Yes, because who gets to decide what is or is not misinformation?

    • Emiledel 3 hours ago

      I feel for your pain, and I'm interested in paths that overcome the collapse of trust we're going through. I think your question matters a lot, to reach solutions all of us need (and not quit until we find a positive one)

    • nathanaldensr an hour ago

      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.

  • matheusmoreira an hour ago

    Misinformation... According to whom?

    You?

    These partisan judge-kings?

    Politicians who lie pathologically?

    So who gets the honor of being the ministry of truth?

  • ImJamal 4 hours ago

    It is. What you think is truth today can easily be considered misinformation tomorrow.

    • 1270018080 4 hours ago

      I know in the post-truth era everyone can pretend their bubble is fact, but come on. Some things actually are misinformation.

      • ImJamal 4 hours ago

        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.