>The row began in April, with the judge ordering the suspension of dozens of X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation.
>Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.
Sure, somethings are actually misinformation. Nobody is denying that. The problem is giving the government the ability to determine what is and isn't misinformation.
If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this? He could supress all the negative information about him calling it misinformation and prevent his misinformation from being banned.
The misinformation and regulation dodging is happening right now, and the functioning Brazilian government is taking steps to stop it. So we should just be happy with the small win as a citizens of the world.
> If [politican you don't like] had the power to consider his misinformation to be truthful and truthful information to be misinformation would you still be in support of this?
If an evil person is trying to rewrite reality from their position of power, you'd hope the checks and balances in the government prevent them from doing so. While the Brazilian government can stop misinformation from spreading, they can also allow real information to continue to spread.
But if we go down this reductive doomsday scenario all the way to the bottom, where there are evil people stacked from top to bottom, your nation failed a long time ago. And maybe part of the blame sits on the people preaching do-nothingness and requiring a perfect system of laws and governance before taking action.
The constitution of Brazil explicitly protects political speech and makes no mention of exempting misinformation.
> Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden.
We should not be happy seeing a judge going after free speech that is explicitly protected by the constitution. This is a loss for the citizens of Brazil, not a win.
Nothing negative should happen to the company. In an ideal world the company should be lauded by everybody who values free speech for not bowing down to government censorship. The politicans supporting censorship should be voted out and the government should pay back any money it took in fines with interest. Those in the company who stood up for free speech should be given a medal by the new government.
Of course, we live in a society which loves censorship and hates free speech. Given the hatred of free speech we are seeing in this thread, I am guessing the ideal situation won't happen anytime soon.
Essentially, the larger the scope/influence is of the body of people deciding what speech to censor, the more dangerous it is to give them that power. This is irrespective of the actual information being censored.
I feel for your pain, and I'm interested in paths that overcome the collapse of trust we're going through. I think your question matters a lot, to reach solutions all of us need (and not quit until we find a positive one)
For the record, I don't really support that coward. I had all but forgotten about his existence until you posted this reply. My opinion of him is the only thing he's got going for him is the fact he's not a socialist, and that this alone makes him better than Lula or any of his communists any day of the week. Make no mistake: this is very faint praise. Being better than literal socialists and communists is a very low bar to clear.
I live how right-wing guys would call any of their opponent a “communist”, even Joe Bidden got called a socialist by some republicans…
Believe it or not, but social democracy based on welfare state (which has nothing to do with Communism) is the only thing that works. (And ironically that what defeated the communist ideology).
The fact that its opponents have to conflate it with Communism as their only argument shows all that needs to be about their reasoning.
I'm calling Lula a communist. He calls himself one. As does the judge he appointed to the supreme court. They even cheered when it happened: "finally we have a communist in the supreme court". Are you actually claiming that these people are not socialists?
I don't even need to discuss their obviously socialist ideologies. There is no need to interpret veiled implications, no need to make any inferences. They straight up use these words to describe themselves. Are you seriously going to contradict their own words on the matter?
If we cannot find common on ground on even such basic facts, then there's no point in any further discussion. Peace out.
Democracy is essentially a prerequisite for a nation to be considered civilized in the 21st century. Obviously, they claim to be a democracy. They clearly aren't. Nobody believes them.
Socialism and communism are failed ideologies that degenerate into dictatorships. They have never worked anywhere in the world, not even once. These people have every incentive in the world to hide their ideology and pretend that it's actually something else. But they don't. They're proud of their communism nonsense. They'll tell you to your face about their socialist ideals. I have videos of our current president giving lengthy speeches on the subject matter. I remember one particularly troublesome video he made just before the elections where he straight up said the state should confiscate everybody's inheritances and give you nothing but what you need to survive.
But somehow it's news to people, the fact these guys are socialists. I have to point it out constantly. People inevitably respond with skepticism. I have to cite evidence every single time. And when I do cite all the things which back up my world view, people just ignore all of it and call me a conspiracy theorist. Like the other guy did in this comments section.
