I don’t think that either @beschizza or @orenwolf are being contradictory, as I don’t think either of them have justified that (not that I remember). Personally, I disagree with them, because I don’t think it’s an example of censorship, it’s an example of a state protecting itself based on it’s own laws, and requiring that corporations don’t engage in activities that contribute to a coup. This is a form of corporate regulation which I think we’d all agree is within the right of a government, especially on the heels of a very recent coup attempt. This isn’t like Putin or Xi unilaterally banning a media company from operating within their borders.
If a government is not able to compel corporations abide by the laws of the state, then we really are in an age where a few wealthy people are able to oppress the rest of us whereever we live. We have no protection from all of us being exploited, all of our resources being exploited, we have no actual freedoms. Corporations pose a major threat, and that includes social media companies. Twitter has stopped being a useful platform that has some problematic aspects (data collection, possibility of stalking, etc), to a platform that is actively trying to overthrow democratically elected governments.
@BakaNeko - so, yes, he can and does comply with laws… There was literally not reason not to comply with this one.
Although keep in mind that this is all the work of Justice Alexandre de Moraes, and there are signs that even he seems to think that he overstepped a bit in his most recent actions preventing anyone from using Twitter there.
The bright spot in all this is that Twitter suddenly lost 20-odd million users overnight and its sixth largest audience.
Yeah, seriously, fuck Twitter - which is to say Musk - in this case. They really can’t claim to be principled defenders of free speech here - Musk didn’t ever bother to challenge the orders in court, Twitter just ignored them and Brazilian law. That’s just outright lawlessness.
And it’s not like Brazil has a fairly recent history with coups that might make them take such things extra seriously… oh… right…
I don’t know if Musk is personally friends with Bolsonaro and his fellow coup-plotters, but they’re certainly part of his extended fascist social circle, and old patterns are repeating, even if the nature of the players is slightly different (i.e. not backed by the US government this time). I saw someone recently write about how the new fascism, unlike traditional fascism, is rhizomatic, springing up across countries in a bottom-up network. That structure becomes really clear with people like Musk.
What would the US do to curb TikTok? (The answer is: force it to be handed over to a consortium of right-wing “investors”.)
Let’s see, he caved into censorship requests from India. Well, that’s their third-biggest audience, so of course they didn’t want to alienate the right-wing government and risk getting banned. Then they caved into censorship requests from Turkey. Well, that’s their seventh-biggest audience, so of course they didn’t want to alienate the right-wing government and risk getting banned. And they they refused to shut down the accounts of right-wing coup plotters in Brazil and in the process effectively banned themselves from their sixth largest market, because… uh…
There’s some sort of pattern here, if only we could figure out what it was…
And I’m definitely not saying that. I’m raising it as something that seems similar, but is probably different, and hoping for groupmind input from people I respect.
Besides, I’m an anarchist who believes in messaging systems that shouldn’t be controlled by corporations, nations, DNS or even IP block ownership. (Making sure that the nazi-punching is installed, that’s tricky but vital!)
I don’t disagree, but right now the end of the state means that the end of any democratic protections for any of us. Private corporations supplanting states is what would happen in the current landscape, which I’m sure you understand. There is what is possible right now and what we imagine could be true in the future based on our ideals. Right now, as imperfect a mechanism it might be in protecting our rights, a robust, democratic state is our best option for reining in corporations. If we can eventually do away with states in the future, that’ll be great.
But we got to deal with what’s in front of us, even as we hold onto our ideals and work to make them a reality. In this case, I think Brazil has got the right of it, given the larger context.
[Starlink finances frozen in Brazil ahead of possible X suspension | Euronews]
It seems like it was more out of fear of losing money. Little by little, Starlink has consolidated its presence in the Brazilian market, especially in locations far from large cities.
This extreme measure taken by Mr. Moraes generated a lot of controversy and the other members of our Supreme Court are asking Mr. Moraes to submit his decision to the court’s plenary in Brasília.
The OAB, the Brazilian Bar Association, will ask the Supreme Court to review the order to fine anyone who uses Xis via VPN.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), suspended a previous order given by him for Google and Apple to remove X do Brasil from their virtual stores and, also reviewing their initial position, allowed these companies to offer VPN applications — which allow access without identifying geolocation — for commercialization.
There was no way to block Xis in Brazil and leave access via VPN open to anyone. Hence this heavy fine. But I think it was very stupid of Mr. Moraes. Today we already have right-wing and liberal politicians (who are not the same thing as American liberals) posting via VPN, clearly in a defiant tone. I believe this measure will fall on Monday.
Those who defend Mr. Musk and are a little more articulate than average, are claiming that sites like Pornhub or Xvideos do not have representatives in the country and that is why Xis should not have been banned. But I don’t think any onanists were spreading conspiracy theories or promoting ideas to overthrow the elected government.
That said, banning Xis was a bit of a dumb move. Anyone who has knowledge and understanding of the Brazilian constitution and laws argues that Mr. Moraes is right. But I don’t know. A judge shouldn’t care about public opinion, but in these times of radicalism as shallow as a saucer, this tussle with Mr. Musk is only increasing the wear and tear on the Court.
Assuming there is an appointed representative. There isn’t. The judge ordered Twitter to appoint one (thus obeying laws), and it didn’t.
Revoking or suspending a charter is pretty toothless for a company that does its business entirely via the internet. With a physical business the state can close the physical space and bar anyone from entering. With an internet based business, the only real option is to block the IP address(es).
Depends on the country. When I worked in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Liberia, I definitely could be jailed for the actions or inactions of the organizations I worked for.
If a company wants to work in a given country, they need to abide by the rules. I have a staff member whose job is to track the registrations in the dozens of countries we work in, make sure all applicable tax, labor, licensing, etc. documents are filed on time, and facilitate the various registration and renewal processes. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with the requirements or not (and there are some very onerous rules and requirements we have to follow), we have to comply in order to remain operating in country. So should Twitter.
In what context? If Twitter refused to comply with Chinese law, likely the same thing. We may not agree with the applicable laws, especially if we believe they are human rights violations, and we can refuse to do business with any company that does business in China until they leave, but it is unreasonable to expect a company — or person — to refuse to comply with a law and not face sanctions.
I did, and thanks for posting. It was very informative. A lot of countries have similar laws, and for similarly good reason. That the US doesn’t is a bit of an anomaly.
True, but Twitter isn’t a resource extraction company, and is in a death spiral. I don’t see the US, or at least the Biden administration, taking much of an interest in Twitter getting shut down for not providing information related to a coup attempt.
Not really. Shutting down a newspaper because they didn’t pay their taxes, or didn’t comply with a subpoena isn’t censorship. It’s a legal dispute. Shutting down Twitter because it shows images of cross-dressing Nazis, or for criticizing the head of government (Lula, Biden, Xi… whatever) in contravention of no law, would be. This is a legal dispute. The Justice was operating within his Brazilian constitutional rights, and not shutting them down because Musk made a crude joke about his bald head.
As @chenille notes, it seems to be restricted to only Twitter. Brazilians can still communicate via BlueSky, TikTok, FecesBook, and other platforms. This order is more like prohibiting contraband than it is censorship, though I do think it’s weird and have doubts about how this could be enforced.
And yep the Brazilian right wing keep on saying it wasn´t a coup. They spent almost two months camped in front the army barracks, begging the military to seize power. But no, calm down, they were just people exercising their right to be free an express their love for country, God and family.
[Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent | AP News]
[Camps of election-denying protesters in Brazil seen as threat ahead of Lula inauguration (france24.com)]
[In Brazil, Bolsonaro voters protest against his defeat | AP News]
From what I read in the newspapers, many suspicious accounts on Xis and messaging apps were used to spread disinformation and coordinate the attacks in Brasília. What remains to be determined, according to the Brazilian courts and police, is who paid for it and who expected to profit from the chaos.
I don’t want to be Humpty-Dumpty about anarchist. I didn’t pass my Anarchy course in college, so I’m not card-carrying anarchist who believes in that weekend during the Spanish Civil War when anarchy actually worked. (Didn’t hand in my term paper, got flunked, now we see the violence inherent in the system!)
I’m certainly not calling for the end of the state. Those are the things that we (tinw) give consent to because they work and get the job done, frequently horribly, but the alternative is worse, but at the heart every system since the Enlightenment, is that rule rests on the consent of the governed.
I just don’t see why I should my give my consent to governments, corporations, and especially Valley Bros like Elon to rule over my social media communications.
And by the ghods, if I’m going to be the product, I’d better get paid!
But lots of things in life cost money. I have to pay to get my car serviced annually, for safety reasons. It doesn’t make maintenance a government conspiracy to impose travel control on everyone. Anyway, legal costs are tax deductible expenses for corporations.
Don’t see quite so many westerners crying foul about the Telegram owner being carted off and questioned.
Just Apartheid Pedison for some reason. Who is hosting a network of paedophiles, arms dealers, drug dealers, fraudsters, crypto(sorry I’m repeating myself), Nazis, violent insurrectionists, anti democratic actors seeking to overthrow the state in collusion with the military, foreign oligarchs, and domestic oligarchs.
There was literally not reason not to comply with this one.
