242

Brazil judge opens inquiry into Musk after refusal to block accounts on X (www.reuters.com)

submitted 7 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A standoff between Elon Musk and Brazil escalated on Sunday when a Supreme Court judge opened an inquiry into the billionaire after Musk said he would reactivate accounts on the social media platform X that the judge had ordered blocked.

Musk, the owner of X and a self-declared free speech absolutist, has challenged a decision by Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordering the blocking of certain accounts. He has said X, formerly known as Twitter, would lift all the restrictions because they were unconstitutional and called on Moraes to resign.

Neither Musk, X nor Brazilian authorities have disclosed which social media accounts were ordered blocked. X first posted about the order to block on Saturday but it was not immediately clear when the order was issued.

Moraes is investigating "digital militias" that have been accused of spreading fake news and hate messages during the government of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and is also leading an investigation into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] baatliwala@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

This coward blocks accounts on Government request in India but not in Brazil? Guess he knows how to butter his bread.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 39 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Modi is right wing. Brazils current leadership is not.

Its pretty simple math for him.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That's funny I'm pretty sure it's still really easy to get banned for no reason

[-] eardon@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago

Good for him.

Fuck censorship.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago

I'm not a Musk fan by any longshot, but does anyone else think that the State having the power to order social media account bans is a bit... excessive?

[-] c10l@lemmy.world 61 points 7 months ago

Note that this is not “just banning someone’s account because they don’t like it”. These are people involved in criminal investigations. Shutting them down is meant to plug their criminal activities so society doesn’t get further damaged by them while the police and judiciary work on actually convicting them.

As an aside: I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I disagree with your view but your question was asked respectfully and in good faith.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

I recognise that, but I am commenting that this power seems easily abusable.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago

Absolutely not. This is an example of the state doing its job as intended. There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech and never has been. Absolute free speech would end the human experiment. The real question here is if one human can hoard enough paper power tokens should they be more powerful than nations and unaccountable to nations laws. Musk is asserting the divine right of kings. This supreme court justice is asserting the just power of democracy.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

It isn't about free speech. I am commenting that this power seems easily abusable.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

All power is abusable. Limit that, but live with it.

[-] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Not really. All extremists should have severely limited platforms to spread their hate in, and who else would see to that, if not democratically elected officials? Even if not democratically elected, I would personally trust almost any even remotely democratic government’s official to enforce something like that than to trust in some edgelord billionaire twat like Musk to do anything other than go the other way and signal boost that extremism instead.

And since I believe this, it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Brazil for this very thing, especially if a far-right populist like Bolsonaro (or anyone Musk likes for that matter) is involved.

But you might hold different views. And fair enough. But I firmly believe we should not give platforms to extremists or traitorous assholes, period. And should work to actively limit that, instead.

I.e I would not like to see, for example, ISIS leaders sharing their beheading videos on any social media platform. By that same logic, I would not like any other kind of extremism there either. I can’t just cherry-pick which kind of extremism I like to be limited and banned. If I believe that there exists entities or influences I would not like to spread, I should accept that those influences exist outside of my personally agreed views of what should be limited.

[+] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -12 points 7 months ago

What happens when people with the opposite political views (Bolsonaro, for example) come to power and label you the extremist that no longer is allowed access to a platform to spread your message?

Just trying to point out that this is the same language and reasoning that, for example, the neofascist regime of Argentina from 1976-1984 used in order to pacify the public for the disappearance and torture of 30,000 people, mostly leftists.

We can be better than them.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

"But the other guy might twist it for his own purposes!" is never a good reason not to protect the people from the proliferation of dangerous extremism.

Especially not when the other guy is someone like Bolsonaro who is a literal fascist and thus, given the power to do so, will limit speech critical of himself and his cronies no matter what anyone else does or doesn't do.

[+] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They were fascists too dumbass. That's the point. In the modern geopolitical sphere, the far right has more centrist support than the far left. Just like with Hitler, or in my example, Videla, etc. They promise security and propagandize, often threatening journalists and humanitarian aid workers like we see Israel doing.

The moment they come to power again within the confines of the system and these laws are already in effect, it gives them the power to crack down on whatever form of 'extremism' they want to, now with legal precedent. The problem with fascists is that they are inherently bad actors in a democracy and people must be taught as much so as to avoid such a rise occurring again.

Just like with the USA War on Drugs, the best thing to do is educate people, not try to 'protect' them like with DARE

The problem is that its not the fascist leader alone, but the proliferation of fascist ideals and sympathies in the population that leads to fascist uprisings. The goal should be to educate about what those are and why they're bad and fallacious and provably wrong, not to play big brother like China.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

The problem with fascists is that they are inherently bad actors in a democracy

That's my point: they will do their oppressive acts in bad faith no matter what, so not doing something positive due to that is all downside with no upside.

If there's not a law/precedent for them to twist, they'll just make one or even pretend there is one. Meanwhile, limiting the spread of dangerous extremist propaganda DOES make a positive difference.

The problem is that its not the fascist leader alone, but the proliferation of fascist ideals and sympathies in the population that leads to fascist uprisings

Which is why combatting their propaganda is necessary and just.

The goal should be to educate about what those are and why they're bad and fallacious and provably wrong, not to play big brother like China.

That makes perfect sense on the surface, but in reality, sufficiently intense and persistent propaganda can't just be educated away.

If someone has been told every day by every person they trust that LGBTQ+ people are inherently evil and want to convert and/or molest children, educating them about the fact that vulnerable minorities such as LGBTQ+ people are no more criminal than people in general and are in fact much more likely to be the VICTIMS of crime than anyone else won't convince them.

Like covid-19 or a Trump presidency, prevention is far more effective than education after infection when it comes to harmful propaganda.

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 7 months ago

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/experts-say-attacks-on-free-speech-are-rising-across-the-us

Enjoy getting jailed by the fashies when they use your own laws against you.

"Liberty means responsibility"

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That's going to happen regardless and as such is not a valid excuse to not do what is right.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, your approach would result in never legislating or regulations at all, since there's no laws that the fascists won't try to twist to their bad faith purposes.

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 7 months ago

So the solution is to take away one of their human rights? I just have to disagree and would argue this is your own authoritarian tendency winning over your leftist one. You're allowing fear of the unknown to guide your decisions concerning human rights. Reminds me of some people in Germany that feared Jews.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Free speech is a right. A platform to use to more effectively spread hateful and fraudulent speech isn't.

Your comparison between Nazis oppressing Jews and not actively encouraging Nazi rhetoric to flourish is not just wrong, it's absolutely ridiculous and potentially dangerous.

Perhaps this handy comic can help you understand why a free society should not give out megaphones to bigots who don't want a free society:

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You're absolute missing Popper's point with this infographic. He doesn't say that anybody preaching intolerance should be jailed, he says specifically those that incite violence. Those that "answer arguments with fists and guns" not random rightists spouting bs on Twitter. If there's a legitimate case against them for inciting violence, rebellion, etc, it should be done in an open court room, not behind closed doors and without criminal defense.

You're a clown and you're supporting clownish shit in the name of fear.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You're a clown and you're supporting clownish shit in the name of fear.

Right back at you with your "any resistance to dangerous disinformation equals actual fascism" bullshit like a high school freshman who read about philosophy for the first time and now considers himself an expert on life, the universe, and everything 🙄

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 7 months ago

Strawman as fuck. 😘

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Again with the projection.

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 7 months ago

Objectively not. You made a strawman argument. Learn how to argue thoughtfully.

You're clearly not worth my time

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

🥱🤫

[-] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well, if they rise to power via legitimate democratic means, then by all means it is what we deserve, and I will either work against it, as an extremist, or move to a less hostile country towards people of my kind, be it political, racial or some other aspect. I’m not saying I’m better than whoever gets labeled an extremist. I am saying that whatever the current political or ideological or whatever climate is, if it is democratic, it is the environ in which I exist, and c’est la vie.

I have a hard time believing a fascist or otherwise extremist powers would take hold of my country, but I’m not naive so as to think it impossible.

I, same as anyone else, simply exist within a complex framework that isn’t under my control.

That being said, I don’t think I hold any “right” or “correct” or necessarily “better” views or ideologies, it just so happens majority right now share that set of beliefs and I happen not to be an extremist in that sense.

At any time I could become one, and I do not think it would be wrong. It would be exactly as “correct”, I would just happen to hold stances against that status quo. That doesn’t change my initial reasoning at all. I have to believe people are mostly rational, emphatic, sensible and good in general, which would translate to my stances having low chances of becoming deemed extremist. If that happens, I would just accept it as entirely understandable, from that point of view, if I was banned from places. And work either against it, or moving my life elsewhere, where there wouldn’t be extremist (from my point of view, not general) powers in rule. And if that was not possible, I’d be imprisoned or killed, which, if happens, was always out of my control, and such is life.

Your argument would require anyone that subscribes to it to believe to be better and more right in the things one beliefs. I do not think so, so I can, with clear mind and consciousness, live with this stance.

Edit: Note that I originally used the word democratic very consciously. Anything outside that bound, would be an entirely different ball game, and that is for wiser and more philosophically minded heads. I consider the realities I live in and which I know, because that is the bound of my experience and understanding. I’m a simple man. But I do hold beliefs, grounded in what I know, and those I like to share if prompted.

Your concern is of course valid, too. Just not something that is necessarily against my stance here. It’s just a hypothetical, which I think I have considered enough to still stand this ground.

Edit2: to answer your question, it would play by the same rule, if they banned me, and I would understand it for the same reasons I understand it now. I wouldn’t agree with it, is the difference, but that doesn’t change the logic of it.

Of course they would ban me, if most of the people thought I was an extremist. I wouldn’t think it my privilege in that scenario to be able to share my extremist views. I would find other channels or fight against that system, or just move to a better suited environment. But I would not think it unfair from a general view, it’s exactly as understandable as the Bolsonaros or whoevers of the world now being banned.

[-] rdca@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Because they’re infringing the law of that country! In order to operate a business in any country any company must follow the local regulations! Elon Musk does not complain when the Saudi Government orders X to ban anyone for any reason, guess who backs Musk’s companies?

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

So drug traffickers and child porn are fine for you?

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

No, they're not.I am commenting that this power is easily abusable.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

You’re more concerned with the concept of authority than anything.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

No, I'm afraid not.

[-] eardon@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Yes.

But most people here think it's okay to censor people who disagree with them.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, it's deeply weird that a judge would have that power. It's like forcing a grocery store to ban a customer who's been throwing tomatoes at people, rather than just locking up the tomato-thrower. Why would a judge have the power to punish someone who committed no crime and is just set-dress8ng for a criminal case?

Put another way: why is this judge ordering X to ban the accounts instead of ordering the account holders to delete their accounts?

[-] GreatDong3000@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Because they have fled Brazil so there is no way to force them to delete their accounts. Meanwhile twitter is a business with actual offices in Brazil so they should follow the court orders.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024

242 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39144 readers

1391 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.