Comment by IntelMiner
Comment by IntelMiner a year ago
"Censoring" literal misinformation is a bad thing now?
Comment by IntelMiner a year ago
"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.
Apologies, it was a link from another article (hooray posting while on mobile!)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o
>The row began in April, with the judge ordering the suspension of dozens of X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation.
>Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.
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.
The misinformation and regulation dodging is happening right now, and the functioning Brazilian government is taking steps to stop it. So we should just be happy with the small win as a citizens of the world.
> 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?
If an evil person is trying to rewrite reality from their position of power, you'd hope the checks and balances in the government prevent them from doing so. While the Brazilian government can stop misinformation from spreading, they can also allow real information to continue to spread.
But if we go down this reductive doomsday scenario all the way to the bottom, where there are evil people stacked from top to bottom, your nation failed a long time ago. And maybe part of the blame sits on the people preaching do-nothingness and requiring a perfect system of laws and governance before taking action.
The constitution of Brazil explicitly protects political speech and makes no mention of exempting misinformation.
> Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden.
We should not be happy seeing a judge going after free speech that is explicitly protected by the constitution. This is a loss for the citizens of Brazil, not a win.
So what happens when misinformation is posted and the corporation won't act to remove it?
In twitter's case, what happens when the corporation actively works to avoid accountability for it?
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.
I live how right-wing guys would call any of their opponent a “communist”, even Joe Bidden got called a socialist by some republicans…
Believe it or not, but social democracy based on welfare state (which has nothing to do with Communism) is the only thing that works. (And ironically that what defeated the communist ideology).
The fact that its opponents have to conflate it with Communism as their only argument shows all that needs to be about their reasoning.
Putting "literal" in front of a word does not clarify the definition of that word.