>I fail to see how this story is divisive
Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.
Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.
Honestly, you could say the same thing about the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, DW, etc or, hell, even Brazil's Supreme Court who will say “everything is working just fine”, despite the increasing censorship happening in the country that they have been taking part. Everyone has some narrative and bias. The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with. And when I'm reading the Times, I'm listening to some sort of "unfiltered truth".
Sure, Musk might have other interests with this other than defending freedom of speech in Brazil. But the same can be said about Moraes, the Brazilian judge censoring journalists who criticize him left and right, going as far as trying to extradite them (and failing on that btw), blocking their profiles on social media, sure as hell isn't interested in "defend the rule of law" or whatever his official excuse is.
I'd argue the bigger problem is rampant "what-aboutism" that infects virtually every discussion these days. What does the NYT or WaPo have to do with Musk, Brazil, or this situation? The subject is Musk. Why broaden the discussion this way to "even out" things for him?
In any case, I was responding to the OP who asked why this article would be considered divisive. My answer is that some (including myself) don't deem Musk/Greenwald to be honest brokers. Musk and his allies have a distinct pattern of supporting certain narratives and rejecting others, while claiming to be champions of free speech and freedom.
> The subject is Musk.
You tried to make it so but the subject is authoritarianism in Brazil.
Of course it matters. And, there is roughly a 0% chance that anyone who is at least semi-cogent, including you, operates in the real world with the belief that it doesn't. That would be highly inadvisable, unless one enjoys being a persistent rube.
>You tried to make it so
The story is about Musk's and Greenwald's takes on authoritariansim in Brazil. The OP asked how it could be considered divisive. One obvious answer is that people are considering the source(s) and their histories. Whatever your personal feelings, two things are true:
1. People absolutely do consider the source
2. Musk and Greenwald are controversial figures with specific motives and ideologies that frequently cause rancor
Where Musk and Greenwald are often divisive they are not the only voices calling out the supreme court authoritarianism in Brazil. The acts and postures of the ministers are enough evidence.
Are you talking about that asshat from "Terça Livre"?
That guy should be in jail for spreading misinformation.