News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I feel pretty conflicted on this whole thing. Don't get me wrong, it's hilarious seeing Elon squirm, but it's disconcerting to see everyone cheering on government censorship of the internet.
The censorship you're talking about, was about 6 or 7 accounts that were instrumental in instigating a January 6 style coup attempt in favour of the previous president who lost the election. Those accounts were causing unrest among the population, and were calling for violence in the streets.
Brazil doesn't look too kindly to that, given its history. They wanted those accounts banned. And instead of arguing the legality of banning those accounts in court, musk decided to get all of Twitter/X banned in Brazil.
In other words, it's Twitter/X's own fault. They could've appointed legal representation and tried to argue that banning those accounts amounted to illegal censorship, but instead of trying that they stuck their head in the sand, like an ostrich, hoping it would blow over, by closing the offices in Brazil and refusing to appoint such legal representation. Leaving the courts no choice but to ban all of Twitter/X.
It's not suppression of speech. It's the consequence of refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Courts by refusing to appoint council.
It's not just hilarious. Twitter gives him way, way too Mich influence and power. It's critical that stops.
Starlink to an extent, too.
Agree with you that I am conflicted though.
Typically, I would agree. However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn't censorship; it's Twitter refusing to appoint legal council to respond to any legal complaints within Brazil's jurisdiction. Musk has made the conscious decision to have Twitter not be legally-compliant with Brazil's laws, therefore Brazil doesn't allow them to operate there.
The Brazilian government is forcing an ISP to block customers' access to a specific website. Whether it's right or wrong is up for discussion, but I can't accept the claim that this is not censorship.
If Chevron were to start drilling in Brazil without any sort of permits or company representative, you might say that Brazil is within its rights to seize that mining equipment. Would that also be censorship?
Do you consider drilling holes in the ground to be a form of speech?
What kind of “gotcha” is this? Nobody here said anything about Musk’s actions being legal and above board, we are complaining that it is concerning that Brazil has internet censorship laws with real teeth.
Because it's literally what's happening? X has not named a legal representative in Brazil. Therefore it cannot do business in Brazil. Thus, all ISPs are ordered to block X so that it cannot do business in Brazil. (same link). Starlink, as an ISP, said they would not comply. Now they are complying. This has literally nothing to do with internet speech and everything to do with complying with a country's laws.
All countries have internet censorship. Pretty sure the companies in the US block child porn websites (Not going to check and get put on a watch list). The fact that things can be labeled illegal is not new or controversial. If your issue is with what is being labeled illegal you need to focus on that.
Agreed.
My issue is not with any content being labeled illegal. I don't like the government enacting censorship by ordering ISPs to block certain traffic.
I think that Brazil is within their rights to seize property or assets of entities engaging in illegal activity.
It's the sort of asymmetric power that concerns me, because by ordering the ISPs around, they can block the entire country's access to information with the flick of a switch. I don't want my government getting too comfortable with this kind of power because I don't know who will wield it next year.
I think ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should not be responsible for censoring content. They shouldn't even know what they're transporting, ideally.
And if that illegal activity is originating from outside the country and brought in through the dumb pipes then what?
Great question. I don't know.
I think most would agree though, that the absence of a good solution does not justify a poor solution.
I guess that anyone in the country who seeks out and obtains the illegal content is committing a crime, so the government could go after them through traditional means. (Although seriously, are we really going to punish regular people for accessing a social media site?)
Admittedly, banning an entire website at the ISP is far more effective. However, I'd argue it's effective in the same way that a cannonball is an effective flyswatter.
I think most would agree that you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it superior to doing nothing? Definately.
A cannonball is a terrible fly swatter. Seriously, you would have a hell of a time killing a single fly with a cannonball.
You can't operate a business that doesn't comply with the law. They don't get a free pass just because their business is a communication service.
Yes but it’s a law that is used for internet censorship.
You can't open a restaurant that doesn't comply with food safety law. This is a "skill issue" on Musk's part. Not censorship.
Nobody here ever said otherwise.
Is shutting down a restaurant because it doesn't comply with food safety restaurant censorship?
No? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make to me by naming dumb stuff that isn’t censorship.
Unable to connect those dots, huh.
Then argue against the law, not for a company ignoring the law.
Yes, that’s what is happening here.
Not really, as X refused to argue it in court, the place where this argument should have taken place.
Whatever we Lemmings think about this ruling is unimportant to the actual rulers. We can argue about that till we're blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. So it's pointless.
X had a chance to assount legal representation. They refused, and as a consequence, the entire website got blocked. It's their own fault.
I'm not even that conflicted, those cheering any government censorship are misguided at best.
Had X wanted to argue this in court, they should've appointed legal representation, instead of closing all of their Brazil offices.
Child porn is illegal, that is also government censorship.