• blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Will it stop people from claiming it was a single judge being political and arbitrary? Certainly not.

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Doesn’t matter. The morons that follow musk already have a mindset of us vs them. All of Brazil is they whether one judge or a Supreme Court. Trump was found guilty by a jury co-selected by his own lawyers. But they were rigged against him. Even the lawyers probably. It doesn’t matter.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even the lawyers probably

        That’s what happens when you’re on your 15th-string team because you keep firing and/or not paying people.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I wonder why EU is dragging their feet for so long, when Xitter clearly doesn’t comply with regulation.
    They’ve been giving warnings, but nothing else yet?
    Also it kind of pisses me off, when public organisations and politicians that claim to defend democracy still use Xitter.
    They are using and helping a platform that clearly has as a goal to undermine democracy.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because opposition parties generally have their groups in there, which would cause political backlash and distance the supporters that still use it. Not that banning social networks abusing their privilege through hidden moderation and promotion and selling their user’s data so propagandist know who and how to target shouldn’t be done, but right know it would be done under the counter-chants of “repression” in the particular cold war 2.0 state of affairs of the world today, and that’s very politically taxing.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Private companies, especially global ones, have too much power. Isn’t it kinda fucked up how a company can overrule laws in multiple countries all over the world, just due to how strong their presence is?

    • Faust@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      159
      ·
      2 months ago

      How about the last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law? Just because someone you do not like is on the receiving end, you should not applaud the authoritarian government.

      • Korne127@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        114
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Supreme Court is upholding the rule of law. If Musk refuses to take action on the massive propaganda and disinformation campaigns that are rampant on his platform and lead to a fascist (like a literal fascist who praised the military dictatorship and openly said it’s only mistake was not to torture enough) getting elected, banning it shows that the democracy is still defensive and able to protect itself.

        We can’t let tech monopolies just ignore any democratic rule and do whatever they want.

      • Josey_Wales@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Care to expand on this?

        Genuinely asking how Elon Musk unilaterally defying a unanimous court order is losing the “last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law.” Seems like more of the same old oligarchy games like it always has been.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          2 months ago

          I can see both sides on this one I think?

          Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

          If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

          Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.

          • nyan@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Except the-service-formerly-known-as-Twitter isn’t being “shut down”, it’s being stopped at the Brazilian border. This actually happens all the time with print publications in many countries that don’t take Free Speech to toxic extremes—they get confiscated at the border by Customs officials. It’s less common these days than it used to be, but I’d bet that there are still instances of fringe porn and unapologetic Nazi propaganda being seized.

            X-Twitter is free to go about its business in the country in which it’s based and in any other country where it hasn’t been banned, just not in Brazil, until and unless it decides to comply with the courts there. Which it is free to do at any time.

          • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t understand your statement, printing Nazi propaganda is a crime so yeah it will be shutdown for committing a crime, doesn’t matter if in the odds day they are printing school books.

            • testfactor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.

              And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.

              It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.

              • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                Thank god is not the US.

                People can say whatever they want but they will suffer the consequences of it, you can not make death threats to people, you can not make defamation like in the case of the female Olympic athlete. If the consequences for these acts are only monetary so the law only works for poor people.

                • testfactor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          61
          ·
          2 months ago
          1. It is a court order for censorship. You may not like what is said on that platform, but it is still straight up suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous. If you do not consider that a problematic move just because you agree with that government for now, you are in for a nasty surprise.
          2. If Brazil wants to shut down the service because of that: That is their right. Welcome to the same club as North Korea, China, and Iran. But what is that move with Starlink? When and where has it become acceptable to seize assets of a company because you have beef with one of its shareholders? What does this signal to other international activities in Brazil?
          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            There are standards whereby you can determine something is harmful and not covered by free speech. Like calling for violence against a demographic minority. That’s not either censorship or in bad faith, but upholding standards for a civilized society.
            It’s basically no different than the fact that you are not allowed to kill people in the street.

          • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            If Brazil wants to shut down the service because of that: That is their right. Welcome to the same club as North Korea, China, and Iran. But what is that move with Starlink? When and where has it become acceptable to seize assets of a company because you have beef with one of its shareholders? What does this signal to other international activities in Brazil?

            First: same club as EUA right? EUA banned TikTok so yeah everyone is in the same boat right now.
            Second: The move with Starlink was: Musk has a debt with Brazil, he didn’t paid the fines so the judges decide that they’ll freeze the money from Starlink because they understand that both companies are on the same corporate group

          • funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It is not the government defining something as dangerous. It‘s the democratically elected parliament, the democratically elected government and the then appointed judges which rule based on democratically created laws. And if the society comes to the conclusion that hate speech, defamation and lies are not covered by free speech they can of course shut down X and co. And the law applies also to billionaires.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            Its a shutdown for non-compliance with a law.

            The law in non-compliance is an attempt to shut down misinformation related to an election where x refused to appoint a court representative. Rather than fight the battle in court they chose to just shut down brazil changing x from a brazil represented company to basically a purely foreign company similar to RT in the US.

            Like there’s a difference between showing up to court to fight for free speech and shutting down your offices so you can’t argue your case.

            • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              when people volunteer their confessions, it probably makes jailing, torturing or execution easier. Xitter is a helpful service for the mullahs

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous

            That’s kind of one of the points of having a government… When it’s applied to banning toxic chemicals or violence, that’s the same thing happening but you just wouldn’t call it censorship.

          • obbeel@lemmy.eco.br
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            When I first learned about it, it kind of seems like school bullying or something criminal. “Give me 50000 if you want to keep operating”. It’s kind of funny, but it is also kind of sad. Anyway, the decision has it geopolitical importance.

      • ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s pretty simple: did Elon design a legal representative as asked by the judge?

        He could have avoided this, but he thought he was above the law, and guess what? He’s not.

      • Virkkunen@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Man you right wingers are a very annoying bunch, always claiming censorship and loss of democracy while applauding the actual wannabe dictators doing gold medal deserving mental gymnastics to justify antidemocratic actions

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, of course. The guy advocating against censorship and pro freedom of business must be a right winger. You do know, what the real right wingers will do, when they get these instruments into their hands? If not, you will probably find out soon in Brazil.

          • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The same thing that is already happening in Turkey, India and Saudi Arabia? Musk’s Twitter has no problem censoring people when it’s to help right-wing authoritarians.

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        america has her own supreme court problems to figure out before anyone starts weeping about brazil being mean to elon fucking musk

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          47
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because some 300 million people somewhere have problems with their courts, the rest of the world does not matter?

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          They are paraphrasing Thomas Paine:

          He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Also a conservative MO: act with hostility (or neglect) towards a target and then scream very loudly about any pushback and try to frame yourself as a victim to gain support.

      • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        2 months ago

        Phew, I thought I was the only one here lol. This whole situation has me wondering what Brazil is trying to do that they’re so afraid will be talked about on X.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    Instead of creating a law. The supreme court creates precedence. So in Democratic republics the judicial branch can do as they please? No. Their whole damn courts unhinged. Apparently the whole damn judicial branch is crooked. Why does the supreme court of Brazil have to get it’s nose involved in silencing citizens on PLATFORMS!?!?!?!? JUST ARREST THE CITIZENS!!! BUT APPARENTLY THEY WANT TO ATTACK CORPORTATIONS AND LEAVE THE PROBLEMATIC CITIZENS ALONE! Throw musk in a deep pit, but do it for a damn good reason like he doesn’t pay a living wage.

    • Constant Pain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The court is doing its job, X is not. Businesses should adhere to the country’s law. They can’t pick and choose what to obey or not obey and not expect to take the heat. Elon Musk’s decision to ignore the order was childish and only caused more harm to itself.

      • proton_lynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh no, it’s not. As much as I hate Elon Musk, Alexandre de Moraes is a criminal. Some of the accounts he is trying to ban are specifically talking about some of his criminal activities. He unconstitutionally blocked Starlink some days ago because Elon Musk is part of the board. He ordered the blocking of ALL VPN services because he didn’t want people to access Twitter. That creates a TERRIBLE precedent, even if you agree that what he was doing in the first place was right. He already blocked Telegram and have been censoring everyone who says anything against him. As a Brazilian, it’s really conflicting to see all this going on. Elon Musk is an idiot and Moraes is a criminal.