Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fnoord | Hacker News Reader

> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election).

I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting.

But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That is the purpose of his action. Musk does the same with regards to other democracies, such as AfD in Germany.

View on HN

They’re not propagandists, they’re the official accounts of candidates in the election. I don’t see any problem with this as long as it’s applied to all candidates equally.

Your reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored.

I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the public knowing which accounts are limited and why.

Well Musk has interfered in elections and riots before so it’s definitely a good idea to hold him under extremely close scrutiny. Being the world’s richest person and one of the most powerful influencers comes with responsibility, a responsibility that Musk has shown to be lacking.

Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.

> That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.

Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning.

Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show those parts of his machine. He still does shadowbanning, too.

[1] https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on...

Why not let them say whatever they want, but just cancel the election after the fact if you feel like the result endangers democracy? It’s worked before. It seems a little more honest and above-board, as well. No smoke-filled back rooms, just “election cancelled”.

Cancelling an election has "this is not the result I wanted, do it again" undertones.

Which one is worse in a democracy, openly altering the result after the fact or covertly preventing the result from taking place at all?

That is exactly how the Soviet control apparatus reasoned. They were protecting the motherland from external influence. Your reasoning doesn't differ from theirs in any way at all. You are completely aligned. Don't you think the Soviets were just as paranoid about external influence? While doing it themselves to other countries.

Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list of accounts which have been limited. The censors are very open about who has their account limited and why (all political candidates during elections). The control fantasies of hackers aren't aligned to reality in this affair. Only aligned to Soviet doctrines which have been obsoleted for 40 years now.

Your Soviet comparisons are a dishonest take. They're also moot, since an issue would be authoritarianism. Regardless, yes, authorities need to exercise their authority to ensure the integrity of elections. It is difficult to do this in a fair way, and regardless it will stir controversy (another vector to throw oil on).

The external influences are documented. We know the Russians meddled with elections in The Netherlands (the 2016 Ukraine referendum), Romania (recently), Brexit, Trump 2016 (via the Clinton hack), 2020, and 2024, and likely also Hungary. In regards to Romania, yes the elections were repeated. That thing tends to happen when elections are fraudulent.

> Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list of accounts which have been limited. The censors are very open about who has their account limited and why (all political candidates during elections).

Because it is about a local law regarding airtime. A law Musk doesn't respect. But because now it requires an active action of the mark to get into a propaganda tarpit, instead of the timeline, it is a reasonable deterrent.

You are not putting in effort. I haven't argued here against the measures by the election tribunals. I have argued against the commenter who wants secret censorship - specifically that the public shouldn't know who has been censored or why. That is his own suggestion - which would fit in the Soviet Union, but not in Brazilian elections.

There is no such secrecy within these measures in Brazil. The accounts are limited specifically by function of belonging to political candidates. The election tribunals - the censors - want the public to know who has been limited and why. As does X. And it has nothing at all to do with any supposedly foreign influence, as hackers are dreaming up in their paranoia. Foreigners cannot run for political office.

But I've noticed that people - especially on HN - will frequently use paranoia as an excuse for not making any mental effort or taking the time to understand what an article or discussion is about. Always looking to steer anything and everything into familiar thought channels where there's an already familiar conclusion, and a familiar enemy to hate.

> But because now it requires an active action of the mark...

The "mark"? Are you talking about voters?

I think people misunderstand what democracy is. To many people they think democracy is a resistance against, ultimately, the Nazis again. The West is structured this way. Post WWII we had a quiet revolution around this. It seems so ingrained people don't even think about it.

To many people, they believe there is a constant and persistent threat of Nazis and that it is the duty of enlightened government officials to continuously stage interventions to stop them. They think people are the problem so it is good to be totalitarian. It is kind of a type of paranoia it's just widely accepted as fact and it's a part of Western institutional ethos.

These laws don't "protect democracy," even the most charitable interpretation of them is that they protect liberal values against democracy. They're inherently counter-majoritarian. Democracy doesn't mean liberalism. E.g. If Iran's ayatollah was elected by free and fair elections, but otherwise the country's laws and policies were the same, that would still be democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com