
Facebook puts global block on Brazil's Bolsonaro supporters - stx
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-brazil/facebook-puts-global-block-on-brazils-bolsonaro-supporters-idUSKBN24X3XC
======
LaundroMat
The nuance is in the first paragraph:

"Facebook (FB.O) said on Saturday it has put a global block on certain
accounts controlled by supporters of Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro
implicated in a fake news inquiry [related to the 2018 elections], a day after
it was fined for not complying with a [Brazilian] Supreme Court judge’s order
to do so."

Update: this is a dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24025587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24025587)

~~~
krimeo
__A day after it was fined for not complying with a Brazilian Supreme Court
judge’s order to do so __

And here I was getting angry at Facebook and their censorship. Cheap clickbait
is a cheap clickbait.

------
0xy
Pet peeve: articles describing people being censored _never_ show you what
they were censored for.

Hiding this information makes it look politically motivated. If it's so bad,
why isn't the content of the material that got them banned reported on?

"Hate speech allegations" is more than meaningless. It means precisely
nothing. What did they actually say?

~~~
nindalf
Either hate speech is a thing that causes real world harm and shouldn't be
repeated, or the benefits allowing that speech outweigh the harm it does.

People can belong to either school of thought. But if you agree with the first
statement, then you should also agree that Reuters publishing hate speech is
just as harmful as Facebook publishing it. If you agree with the second, you
probably don't think Facebook should take the content down. If that's what you
think go ahead, but it's not a tiny peeve - it's a major difference of
opinion.

I'm not taking a stance either way, just pointing out the options - either
both block the speech or neither does.

The only illogical thing would be agreeing with Facebook's decision to take
the content down but disagreeing with Reuters' decision to not repeat the same
content. I can't see how that would work.

~~~
_-___________-_
Before you can discuss any of that, you need to define "hate speech", and
that's often where the problems begin.

~~~
nindalf
The thrust of my argument isn't the validity of the Brazil court's or
Facebook's judgement, it's whether Reuters should follow suit.

So any definition of hate speech is fine, as long as Facebook and Reuters take
broadly similar ones.

For argument's sake, let's take Facebook's definition

> We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call
> protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
> affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and
> serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of
> age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also
> provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as
> violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for
> exclusion or segregation.

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech)

------
aszantu
Lol I hope they'll do all other regimes as well ;)

