- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
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?
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.
I recognise that, but I am commenting that this power seems easily abusable.
Correction. They’ve been accused of criminal activity but as far as I understand it they haven’t actually been found in guilty yet.
That’s what I said. They’re under a criminal investigation.
You don’t punish people prior to the completion of the investigation.
What if they turn out to be innocent you’ve now just violated their rights for no reason
You don’t punish them per se, but you do sanction them.
For example, Bolsonaro can’t leave the country even though he hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet.
Also, someone who’s been accused of murder will probably be arrested preventatively if the judge in charge has reason to believe they will reincide before the proceedings are through.
These things happen all the time and they’re designed to protect society from further damage from criminals who haven’t yet been fully judged and processed.
Courts do it everyday. It’s called an injunction.
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.
It isn’t about free speech. I am commenting that this power seems easily abusable.
All power is abusable. Limit that, but live with it.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Which is why combatting their propaganda is necessary and just.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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?
So drug traffickers and child porn are fine for you?
No, they’re not.I am commenting that this power is easily abusable.
You’re more concerned with the concept of authority than anything.
No, I’m afraid not.
Yes.
But most people here think it’s okay to censor people who disagree with them.
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?
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.
And to the people saying this is ok, is it also okay for china to have accounts banned? Russia, Philippines, brazil, Iran, the US under Trump? Israel? Who gets to decide which countries’ legal systems have this authority?
You’re concern trolling. Don’t concern troll.
That’s a good way to dismiss a legit question.
And also, as in this case, a good way todismiss concern trolling and/or unconstructive false equivalence.
That oppressive regimes might use social media moderation to stifle dissent doesn’t mean that an egalitarian society shouldn’t use the same tools to protect the people from the proliferation of legitimately harmful extremism.