Musk challenges Brazil's order to block certain X accounts
reuters.com
reuters.com
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/itd-crazy-easy-brazil-block-we...
https://bsky.app/profile/boiadeiro.bsky.social/post/3kpl4ks6...
For context, >tens of thousands of Brazilians have flooded Bluesky since yesterday.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/brazil-ju...
Then the elected politicians rejected that law and these same judges rammed it down our throats anyway via "electoral court resolutions".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
Even so, in the US being rich seems to triumph over everything else so it's unlikely to matter.
- Elon Musk (2023)
What is it exactly that's different in this case?
https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/twitt...
the first clue was the “public square” argument. a privately owned space by literal definition can not be public. the second clue was obvious to anyone who has ran a large online community or worked in real world gathering spaces: it’s impossible to allow all behaviors yet expect people to want to spend their time visiting.
he has shown his disingenuousness repeatedly.
There were solid arguments that both of those were not legal censorship.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-censoring-content-recep...
January 8th is Brazil's January 6th. Former Brazil president was a bizarre world trump, with all the scandals happening later but in a similar way and same order. Elected from a Bannon campaign. Even the failure to second term reelection. everything the same but a little later. so bizarre.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
> interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
> ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Civilized adult humans handle disagreement and anything they find abhorrent with speech and explanations of their own, instead of gagging others. At least they used to, when they existed...
I’m being oppressed!
In my reading it is exactly the other way around, no?
You sent something to NYT they published it and now they are not allowed to publish anything from you, and not because what new content is.The ban is because you wrote it.
And if they do publish something you wrote they are criminally negligent.
Courts and due process exist to do this silencing.
Defamation is such an attack, and something has to be done to protect them.
Also consider article 30 "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
The right to free speech shouldn't be interpreted as the right to infringe on the rights of others, including attack upon their honor and reputation.
There have been multiple accounts of comedians, podcasters, and YouTubers being fined or even arrested because of their opinions or jokes. Often these jokes wouldn't even target anyone in particular.
It's batshit crazy.
Freedom of broadcast? They're not exactly on state-sponsored TV. What does the government have to do with what shows up on social media?
In a country with actual freedom you'd have riots on the street.
Social media is a regulated platform.
In a <blank> you can project whatever fantasy you wish.
Were they afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision?
> January 8th is Brazil's January 6th.
Which means two countries had two very similar incidents that are somehow entirely unrelated, or this is being used as a narrative device for the purposes of disenfranchising literally half these countries voters.
> so bizarre.
Or just a manipulated outcome.