If not for this, they’d certainly impose the block with another excuse. They just don’t like Elon.

So you’re set to automatically complain unless the fact-check aligns perfectly with your worldview?

The old system of using fact-checking agencies was biased, and the content they deemed false had its reach negatively impacted. They were literally the arbiters of truth, and their actions silenced their political opponents’ voices. The new system of Community Notes is superior because it requires approval from people with diverse political alignments to show a fact-check to everyone.

deleted by creator

It’s easy to be bold when the US president is weak. I don’t think they’d ban X if Trump was president at the time.

As long as it keeps censoring its citizens, everthing fine! 🙄

When Zuckerberg mentioned ‘secret courts in South America that order content removal without publicly disclosing it,’ everyone in Brazil immediately knew he was referring to our Supreme Court. The Court has been working in tandem with the federal administration to suppress laws approved by Congress, including a 2013 law that implemented a notice-and-takedown system similar to the DMCA. Under this system, internet content providers are only held responsible if they fail to remove content after receiving a specific court order.

The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional, while the federal government simply parrots the same fallacious arguments made by the judges. Every article I’ve read on this subject fails to identify which part of our Constitution the system supposedly violates, and I’ve personally searched for it without success. I suspect the Court is determined to stifle free speech in Brazil and will come up with an excuse for the law’s unconstitutionality later—likely something vague, like ‘violation of human dignity.’ Supreme Court judges often use this phrase liberally in their televised oral arguments.

The federal government and the Supreme Court claim to be protecting democracy, yet they seem unconcerned with preserving one of its core tenets: the separation of powers."

Al Jazeera, a news network banned in both Israel and Saudi Arabia for alleged biased reporting, had one of its reporters identified as a Hamas militant during the early stages of the war. Seems legit?

I always wondered what’s the source of this GIF…

For some time the site has been reluctant in posting Nintendo stuff. Their focus seems to be hacks from other consoles like Playstation. If that’s the case, I don’t know why the owner is no longer posting new content to the site.

For me, the page doesn’t allow me to scroll past the first sentence of the article.

Maybe it’s because I’m using mobile Firefox with uBO? I only managed to read the article through here.

I think you’re mistaken about what this lower price tier offers. It is still ad-free, except for Youtube Music which is ad-supported. If a regular YouTube video uses a song that belongs to the YouTube Music catalog, it will have ads as normal. Also, this tier doesn’t offer background playback (with the phone screen turned off).

I got genuinely curious, and so I asked ChatGPT to write a less biased headline. I got this: “Israeli airstrikes target Hamas militants hiding in civilian areas, leading to tragic collateral damage at a hospital in northern Gaza.”

“World Socialist Web Site”. No wonder the headline is so biased.

The moment Hezbollah resorted to launching missiles at Israeli territory, and Israel fought back, then diplomacy failed already.

Then maybe they should identify themselves as war inspectors or historians? “Peacekeepers” is kinda misleading…

If they’re indeed peacekeepers, then they failed their job miserably. As it stands, their only usefulness is being human shields for Hezbollah.

Hezbollah can throw any excuse they want, but the reality is that they attacked first. They should have known the limits of their military strength and shown restraint against a much more powerful nation. Too bad they were lacking in common sense. Now all their top leaders are eliminated, half their missile launchers are destroyed, and if a ground incursion by Israel occurs, they’re basically finished.

And if Israel ends up occupying the south of Lebanon, it won’t be the first time they’ve done so. In the year 2000, they voluntarily withdrew from the south of Lebanon after defeating Hezbollah, in the hopes that they’d stop attacking Israeli territory. Looks like being the nice guy with a terrorist group that’s determined to destroy them at any cost is not a very good idea.

Hezbollah has been sending missiles to Israeli territory for almost a year. So they started this war, but Israel has been very lenient by not starting a full-scale war until now. The patience has run out. Like they used to say: fuck around and find out.

Maybe they’re eyeing potential spoils of war? These military operations will need sources of financing.

But, realistically, they’re probably planing the formation of an exclusion zone to avoid Hezbollah installing missile launchers so close to Israel’s borders.