No X in Brazil? No problem, Brazilians say(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
No X in Brazil? No problem, Brazilians say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/03/elon-musk-brazil-x-moraes-starlink/
77 comments
Wow, I can't believe the Washington Post is supporting censorship again. It's almost like "Democracy does in darkness" was a complete lie.
Where in this article does the Washington Post take an organizational stance on the block?
Cherry picking anecdotes.
There's a lot of people missing X as evidenced in this article https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazilian-judge-suspends-x-platfo...
There's a lot of people missing X as evidenced in this article https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazilian-judge-suspends-x-platfo...
That article does the exact same thing.
The WaPo article at least cites some actual stats:
> In 2022, only 3 percent of Brazilians cited the social network as their preferred location to consume political news, the area in which Twitter was once strongest, according to a survey by the Institute for Democracy and Democratization of Communication.
The WaPo article at least cites some actual stats:
> In 2022, only 3 percent of Brazilians cited the social network as their preferred location to consume political news, the area in which Twitter was once strongest, according to a survey by the Institute for Democracy and Democratization of Communication.
> That article does the exact same thing.
So you agree the WaPo article is crap? Because it uses anecdotes to prove a negative, while the article I linked disproves the WaPo by showing that some Brazilians do care. You can't prove a negative with anecdotes but you can prove a positive.
So you agree the WaPo article is crap? Because it uses anecdotes to prove a negative, while the article I linked disproves the WaPo by showing that some Brazilians do care. You can't prove a negative with anecdotes but you can prove a positive.
> So you agree the WaPo article is crap?
No, I'd suggest reading the next line of my comment. It "at least cites some actual stats" rather than quoting Cardi B and the admins of a Timothy Chalamet fan page.
No, I'd suggest reading the next line of my comment. It "at least cites some actual stats" rather than quoting Cardi B and the admins of a Timothy Chalamet fan page.
No, I'd suggest reading the next line of my comment. You cannot prove a negative with incomplete stats.
3% of Brazilian population is still 6.45 million people who primarily use X for news. There are 23 million X users in Brazil. That's a lot of people.
3% of Brazilian population is still 6.45 million people who primarily use X for news. There are 23 million X users in Brazil. That's a lot of people.
That's an intentionally silly reading of the WaPo article's title, contents, and implications. They're fairly obviously not making the claim that zero Brazilians care. They're making the supported claim that Twitter's seen a decline in Brazil in recent years and is probably going to just shift over to other platforms, as we've already seen to some extent.
> 6.45 million people who primarily use X for news.
It's like 6.45 million people primarily using a mix of styrofoam and lead as basis for a healthy diet
It's like 6.45 million people primarily using a mix of styrofoam and lead as basis for a healthy diet
Wild to see a newspaper so mercurial about censorship.
It's especially ironic because censoring the press is what got this judge started down this path.
A brazilian magazine ran a damning article on one of the supreme court judges. They created a "fake news" inquisition and appointed this judge as the head of it. First thing he does? Censor the magazine as "fake news".
It's under the umbrella of that "fake news" inquistion that X got ordered to censor political accounts.
A brazilian magazine ran a damning article on one of the supreme court judges. They created a "fake news" inquisition and appointed this judge as the head of it. First thing he does? Censor the magazine as "fake news".
It's under the umbrella of that "fake news" inquistion that X got ordered to censor political accounts.
Is banning a platform censorship? Wouldn't censorship involve banning specific posts on the platform?
The ban is a direct result of refusal to censor, so this is 100% about censorship.
Recap: Judge requests censoring, X says "no," judge says censor or I'll throw your reps in jail, X withdraws reps, judge bans X (and started going after StarLink, SpaceX, and anything Elon's touched).
Recap: Judge requests censoring, X says "no," judge says censor or I'll throw your reps in jail, X withdraws reps, judge bans X (and started going after StarLink, SpaceX, and anything Elon's touched).
Your summary is too hand-wavy and misses key points.
The request wasn't for X to filter posts, which is what most people consider to be censoring. The request was to block certain individuals. X refused, the judge ordered the entire platform be blocked, X appealed to the Brazilian Supreme Court who in turn upheld the judge's decision to block the entire platform in Brazil.
You have to follow a country's laws when doing business in that country. As the judge noted, and I'm definitely paraphrasing here but it gets the sentiment across, who the hell does Elon Musk think he is?
The request wasn't for X to filter posts, which is what most people consider to be censoring. The request was to block certain individuals. X refused, the judge ordered the entire platform be blocked, X appealed to the Brazilian Supreme Court who in turn upheld the judge's decision to block the entire platform in Brazil.
You have to follow a country's laws when doing business in that country. As the judge noted, and I'm definitely paraphrasing here but it gets the sentiment across, who the hell does Elon Musk think he is?
> The request was to block certain individuals.
Yes. Because of the political posts they made. Also known as censorship. Which is unconstitutional in Brazil. Whose constitution goes out of its way to say that political censorship of any kind is illegal.
There is no problem with Musk deciding to ban something on his website. The problem is some judge illegally compelling him to do so.
Yes. Because of the political posts they made. Also known as censorship. Which is unconstitutional in Brazil. Whose constitution goes out of its way to say that political censorship of any kind is illegal.
There is no problem with Musk deciding to ban something on his website. The problem is some judge illegally compelling him to do so.
The Brazilian Supreme Court defines what is, and isn't, constitutional. Not you. Not Elon Musk.
By this kind of absurd logic the Court could annoint a Monarch and it would be constitutional as per you.
The constitution defines what's constitutional. The supreme court's job is to apply the constitution. Not to redefine it.
Their job is to be a law application machine. We don't want them "redefining" things. That's the job of our elected representatives. Not a single person voted on these supreme court judges. Their jobs are to do what's written on the paper, no more and no less.
The constitution plainly states in very simple terms that anyone can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited
> The expression of thought is free
It's very simple. People have argued some impressive mental gymnastics to relativize those very simple lines of text but I'm just not convinced.
The accounts in question were engaged in political discourse. A judge ordering the erasure of such discourse absolutely does fall in the deliberately broad category of "any and all censorship of political and ideological nature". There is simply no way this is justified.
Their job is to be a law application machine. We don't want them "redefining" things. That's the job of our elected representatives. Not a single person voted on these supreme court judges. Their jobs are to do what's written on the paper, no more and no less.
The constitution plainly states in very simple terms that anyone can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited
> The expression of thought is free
It's very simple. People have argued some impressive mental gymnastics to relativize those very simple lines of text but I'm just not convinced.
The accounts in question were engaged in political discourse. A judge ordering the erasure of such discourse absolutely does fall in the deliberately broad category of "any and all censorship of political and ideological nature". There is simply no way this is justified.
Also, Musk isn't telling the whole story
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-twitter-elon-musk-x-censor...
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-twitter-elon-musk-x-censor...
[deleted]
If you click around in X for a few minutes, I doubt you won't find nazi propaganda or downright illegal content.
The content moderation aspect just doesn't exist. It'll soon become yet another 4chan.
What I'm really surprised about is how X is still operating in the US or here in Europe.
The content moderation aspect just doesn't exist. It'll soon become yet another 4chan.
What I'm really surprised about is how X is still operating in the US or here in Europe.
> What I'm really surprised about is how X is still operating in the US or here in Europe.
Me too, which is crazy. I remember when news outlets in Europe were complaining about how Russia forbids websites where people could talk freely, complained about arrests over social media posts. That was maybe a decade ago. Hearing "bad fake news hate speech bad" over and over again somehow does something, I guess. You start to seriously question why something that allows people to share text and pictures is not banned.
Me too, which is crazy. I remember when news outlets in Europe were complaining about how Russia forbids websites where people could talk freely, complained about arrests over social media posts. That was maybe a decade ago. Hearing "bad fake news hate speech bad" over and over again somehow does something, I guess. You start to seriously question why something that allows people to share text and pictures is not banned.
In the US, there is a constitutional callout to the freedom of speech/expression. This has been interpreted very broadly historically speaking. It would and should be very difficult to restrict this. And in my opinion this is the way things should be.
The path to dystopia is really easy to envision and must be resisted imo. I don't want to see a day where you can be arrested, or worse, for saying you don't like the President when someone else can hear or report you, or because the govt are spying on your phone.
Yes, this does mean protecting speech that I don't like as well. Twitter has a "following" tab, as well as the ability to block individuals you don't like. Between the two, you have all the control you need to avoid content you don't like. I don't need some large, opaque company, government or cabal to decide on my behalf what I'm allowed to, or not to see.
The path to dystopia is really easy to envision and must be resisted imo. I don't want to see a day where you can be arrested, or worse, for saying you don't like the President when someone else can hear or report you, or because the govt are spying on your phone.
Yes, this does mean protecting speech that I don't like as well. Twitter has a "following" tab, as well as the ability to block individuals you don't like. Between the two, you have all the control you need to avoid content you don't like. I don't need some large, opaque company, government or cabal to decide on my behalf what I'm allowed to, or not to see.
> If you click around in X for a few minutes, I doubt you won't find nazi propaganda or downright illegal content.
I just don't believe you.
How about you "click around X for a few minutes" and show us all the bad stuff you found.
I just don't believe you.
How about you "click around X for a few minutes" and show us all the bad stuff you found.
That was pretty much my first thought... what kind of people are you following, if you see a lot of this kind of thing. I mostly use the "Following" tab now, as it's just more tuned to what I want to see and who I follow, even if it is political.
I also feel there are a lot of chaos operatives on the platform that are spewing garbage and these are likely foreign state actors as much as trolls. Which comes back to who you follow. I am perfectly fine as long as I can block individuals I don't like... I don't necessarily want the platform to do it for me.
I also feel there are a lot of chaos operatives on the platform that are spewing garbage and these are likely foreign state actors as much as trolls. Which comes back to who you follow. I am perfectly fine as long as I can block individuals I don't like... I don't necessarily want the platform to do it for me.
Lol. "I don't see hate speech as long as I turn off the promoted speech."
I am an adult and can manage my own needs and expectations. The platform offers the adjustments that I would expect to be able to do that. I don't wear a diaper or have the govt wipe my rear either.
Okay, use X then, I don’t understand your problem here. The rest of us are going to choose platforms where we don’t have to be neighborly with phrenology enthusiasts.
The internet has something for everybody, just pick the social media you are happy with.
The internet has something for everybody, just pick the social media you are happy with.
I'm not the one trying to censor public discourse or jail people that allow for public discourse that the people in govt don't like. It's a slope that's repeatedly been slipped on through history.
If you have a platform you like, use it. As long as I have a block button that I can choose to use, I'm okay. If you think Twitter/X is bad, you should splunk around Telegram sometime.
In any case, I can choose who to associate with. I don't want the government to tell me I can't, it isn't right. I don't like flag burning either, but would rather not have that outlawed either. Repressive regimes can come from many directions... best to resist them all.
If you have a platform you like, use it. As long as I have a block button that I can choose to use, I'm okay. If you think Twitter/X is bad, you should splunk around Telegram sometime.
In any case, I can choose who to associate with. I don't want the government to tell me I can't, it isn't right. I don't like flag burning either, but would rather not have that outlawed either. Repressive regimes can come from many directions... best to resist them all.
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." -Mark Twain
[deleted]
I have not found a single nazi posting in my timeline. I guess there are some like in any other social network but the mass effect proclaimed can not be seen.
I feel like this is a really different experience to my own current experience of Twitter.
My timeline notably isn't full of right-wing propaganda, whereas I know plenty of others who complain that this is the case, and who have even left because of it.
I don't understand what is causing people to have these really different experiences with the product, especially given the relatively minimal controls over timeline content that are available (basically follow/unfollow/block).
It's odd.
My timeline notably isn't full of right-wing propaganda, whereas I know plenty of others who complain that this is the case, and who have even left because of it.
I don't understand what is causing people to have these really different experiences with the product, especially given the relatively minimal controls over timeline content that are available (basically follow/unfollow/block).
It's odd.
Twitter is filled with sports stuff for me, nothing nazi and almost nothing political. I use it exclusively for sports stuff, though.
> I don't understand what is causing people to have these really different experiences -- given the relatively minimal controls over timeline content
I offer that the purpose of exTwitter's algorithms is to choose different content for different people - and insufficient controls keep user consent from interfering with that.
As to why exTw algos choose what is chosen: The purpose of black boxes seems to be making sure users never, ever learn why.
I offer that the purpose of exTwitter's algorithms is to choose different content for different people - and insufficient controls keep user consent from interfering with that.
As to why exTw algos choose what is chosen: The purpose of black boxes seems to be making sure users never, ever learn why.
I went to check for myself. The posts for me seem to be split 50/50 between tech content from people I'm following and raging debates about whether Churchill is responsible for WW2 (due to some podcast with Tucker Carlson). As you might guess the second one is full of literal Nazi propaganda and Hitler apologists.
The rest is filled out with people dunking on Elon. My guess is that if I didn't have him blocked, his stuff would show up there too.
The rest is filled out with people dunking on Elon. My guess is that if I didn't have him blocked, his stuff would show up there too.
> I don't understand what is causing people to have these really different experiences with the product
Imagine you're in a right wing bubble. You follow right wing people. Some of them start complaining about what some fringe left wing people post on X and link to those tweets. You follow those links. Now you just interacted with fringe left wing people. Little by little the mighty algorithm will start giving you what you seem to like: fringe left wing content. Now you're complaining about how X is full of those tweets.
Reverse left and right and you got the OP.
Imagine you're in a right wing bubble. You follow right wing people. Some of them start complaining about what some fringe left wing people post on X and link to those tweets. You follow those links. Now you just interacted with fringe left wing people. Little by little the mighty algorithm will start giving you what you seem to like: fringe left wing content. Now you're complaining about how X is full of those tweets.
Reverse left and right and you got the OP.
surprisingly, nearly all politicians, from municipal all thew way to european level, still have accounts there.
I often wonder and worry about how they and their social media teams must perceive the world and especially the electorate if they still hang out in this environment.
edit: and as a consequence, most journalists also still have at least an account there. same for them: how do they perceive the world? especially given the propensity for the right wing/fascists for commenting directly on the local news' websites...
I often wonder and worry about how they and their social media teams must perceive the world and especially the electorate if they still hang out in this environment.
edit: and as a consequence, most journalists also still have at least an account there. same for them: how do they perceive the world? especially given the propensity for the right wing/fascists for commenting directly on the local news' websites...
About the same as left-wing/communists for commenting everywhere.
In the end, there are things that suck about a general freedom of speech and expression. With Twitter, you have the ability to block those that offend you, as does everyone else. I appreciate and use this function. What I don't want is for some huge opaque organization to decide on my behalf.
In the end, there are things that suck about a general freedom of speech and expression. With Twitter, you have the ability to block those that offend you, as does everyone else. I appreciate and use this function. What I don't want is for some huge opaque organization to decide on my behalf.
X = X11 R6
X = Twitter
X = variable in mathematics
Personally, I think the name should be changed back.
X = Twitter
X = variable in mathematics
Personally, I think the name should be changed back.
Rocket Daddy thinks so too: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830147680468607423
"POV: VPN companies after Brazil banned Twitter"
Banned what now, Elon?
"POV: VPN companies after Brazil banned Twitter"
Banned what now, Elon?
Once we think of X as Ex (and forget about it entirely), we'll have one less to worry about.
I agree, and suspect the majority of people do.
There's another article on the front page at the moment about grepability as an important metric for codebases.
Similarly, I think Googleability is an important metric for company, service, and product names: X ain't it (although fortunately I have little cause to Google anything related to X/Twitter on a regular basis).
There's another article on the front page at the moment about grepability as an important metric for codebases.
Similarly, I think Googleability is an important metric for company, service, and product names: X ain't it (although fortunately I have little cause to Google anything related to X/Twitter on a regular basis).
I just never stopped calling it Twitter. Everyone already knows the name and twitter.com still works.
Brazil is a meme machine. A trendsetter with disproportional importance.
Xitter was already a struggling, much duller shadow of its former self. This is another huge blow, perhaps the last.
Xitter was already a struggling, much duller shadow of its former self. This is another huge blow, perhaps the last.
Probably not the final blow, but Twitter will lose a bit more ad revenue in the same week CBS reported that The World Bank called BS on Elon's claims about content moderation and a few other ad buyers followed them out, and Twitter's MAUs will probably take a measurable hit. Elon suing Media Matters makes leaving that much more front of mind. Better to leave while Elon is distracted.
"I don't care about censoring opinions. I don't have any anyway"
Lots of FUD against X.
That article should be considered more of an opinion than actual news.
That article should be considered more of an opinion than actual news.
Why is it that modern liberal ideology is so censorship heavy? I want all of my "political enemies" to be on Twitter, I want the heads of Iran, North Korea, etc to be on twitter, I want "misinformation" to be on Twitter because the "solution" to all of the above is infinitely worse.
From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned. It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem?
From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned. It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem?
> From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned.
Tweeting the mere word "cisgender" will get your post's visibility limited for "hateful conduct".
Tweeting the mere word "cisgender" will get your post's visibility limited for "hateful conduct".
> It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem?
You really don't see any issue with giving access to hate speech through a mass media platform? What is your suggestion for a solution when Nazis and other hate groups can boost their messaging on a massive scale?
If you say "better education" or "let the marketplace of ideas work" I have a bridge to sell you.
You really don't see any issue with giving access to hate speech through a mass media platform? What is your suggestion for a solution when Nazis and other hate groups can boost their messaging on a massive scale?
If you say "better education" or "let the marketplace of ideas work" I have a bridge to sell you.
Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech. I used to think that was obvious, and even others like Noam Chomsky agree with me, but I guess not. So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide.
On a slight separate thought, I've always wondered how much of a minority I am in that thinking these days. 10%? 5? 1? It's literally that "Yes, you are all wrong" meme come to life.
On a slight separate thought, I've always wondered how much of a minority I am in that thinking these days. 10%? 5? 1? It's literally that "Yes, you are all wrong" meme come to life.
> Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech.
I think the Cambridge dictionary definition is a good starting point, even if it doesn't have a consistent meaning across every facet of political/social discussion:
> public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation
If your speech expresses hate or encourages violence it shouldn't have a platform, no matter if you are a progressive hating on conservatives or any other group of people.
Don't you agree that's at least a good baseline to start curtailing this on mass media platforms? I'd prefer a world where people calling for the death of Jews, black people, conservatives, white people, whatever group it is to not have a way to reach big cohorts of the population.
> So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide.
And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilisation.
Quick edit: you can have free speech, it doesn't mean it's free from consequences. One of those consequences is that hateful speech might not be allowed in mass media platforms, you can still spread your hate speech person-to-person, that's not a crime in many places.
I think the Cambridge dictionary definition is a good starting point, even if it doesn't have a consistent meaning across every facet of political/social discussion:
> public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation
If your speech expresses hate or encourages violence it shouldn't have a platform, no matter if you are a progressive hating on conservatives or any other group of people.
Don't you agree that's at least a good baseline to start curtailing this on mass media platforms? I'd prefer a world where people calling for the death of Jews, black people, conservatives, white people, whatever group it is to not have a way to reach big cohorts of the population.
> So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide.
And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilisation.
Quick edit: you can have free speech, it doesn't mean it's free from consequences. One of those consequences is that hateful speech might not be allowed in mass media platforms, you can still spread your hate speech person-to-person, that's not a crime in many places.
>And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilization.
We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views.
Who are you to dictate what society/civilization is allowed to think/view?
The one thing I'll agree with you on is the removal of financial incentives from these websites. I do want all viewpoints on these websites, but I of course understand the removal of financial payments for posts that "go viral" praising Stalin or Hitler or something.
We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views.
Who are you to dictate what society/civilization is allowed to think/view?
The one thing I'll agree with you on is the removal of financial incentives from these websites. I do want all viewpoints on these websites, but I of course understand the removal of financial payments for posts that "go viral" praising Stalin or Hitler or something.
> We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine.
When exactly did we have ways to spread a message across the globe instantly, effortlessly, while also having the capacity to generate fake engagement/support at massive scale for hate-filled points of view to drive naïve audiences into them through history?
> What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views.
They can express their views, just not on some types of media which have a massive reach.
Broadcast radio and TV have regulations on what can be said on air due to its reach, why does broadcast over the internet should be any different? If you post on Twitter you are broadcasting.
You can still tell your friends at the dinner table that you hate Jews, you won't be arrested for that, the worst outcome is being socially shunned for having an abhorrent opinion. You should not be able to distribute that messaging across the larger population.
I ask this with honest curiosity: how do you expect society to deal with this issue? When 14 years old boys start getting bombarded by abhorrent speech such as encouraging the hate and killing of other groups, when some uneducated person falls into a conspiracy theory? How do you deal with the stochastic processes this start without curtailing access to the platform that allows this to be distributed?
You are conflating free speech with free access to broadcasting platforms, those are definitely not the same.
When exactly did we have ways to spread a message across the globe instantly, effortlessly, while also having the capacity to generate fake engagement/support at massive scale for hate-filled points of view to drive naïve audiences into them through history?
> What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views.
They can express their views, just not on some types of media which have a massive reach.
Broadcast radio and TV have regulations on what can be said on air due to its reach, why does broadcast over the internet should be any different? If you post on Twitter you are broadcasting.
You can still tell your friends at the dinner table that you hate Jews, you won't be arrested for that, the worst outcome is being socially shunned for having an abhorrent opinion. You should not be able to distribute that messaging across the larger population.
I ask this with honest curiosity: how do you expect society to deal with this issue? When 14 years old boys start getting bombarded by abhorrent speech such as encouraging the hate and killing of other groups, when some uneducated person falls into a conspiracy theory? How do you deal with the stochastic processes this start without curtailing access to the platform that allows this to be distributed?
You are conflating free speech with free access to broadcasting platforms, those are definitely not the same.
Hate speech is one of those things that's hard to nail down a perfect academic definition, but is often easy to spot in practice. I may not be able to tell you exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that (for example) a Nazi saying "Jews deserved the Holocaust" is well across that line.
Easy for who to spot? Who elected these "spotters"? Which cultural norm is the accepted normal for what is and isn't considered crossing the line?
Is it Islamic? Ancient Roman or Aztec? Modern Chinese? White American Liberal? Each of those has radically different views on what is and isn't considered "hate speech".
Maybe I should have clarified a little bit: It's easy to spot hate speech if your moral framework starts with the idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of life and human dignity. I acknowledge that that's not a universal idea. But quite frankly I don't particularly value the opinion of people who disagree with that sentiment.
Moral relevancy is kind of a cop out argument. We don't need literally everyone in the world to agree on something before we start taking action. Advocate for your own opinion, don't hide behind theoretical people across time and space.
Finally, I'm going to flip your argument a bit. You're the one who stated that there's no logical way to identify hate speech, so why don't you provide some examples? What are some things that you've seen identified as hate speech, where you disagree with that assessment?
Moral relevancy is kind of a cop out argument. We don't need literally everyone in the world to agree on something before we start taking action. Advocate for your own opinion, don't hide behind theoretical people across time and space.
Finally, I'm going to flip your argument a bit. You're the one who stated that there's no logical way to identify hate speech, so why don't you provide some examples? What are some things that you've seen identified as hate speech, where you disagree with that assessment?
Advocating for genocide is difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really?
How about advocating for the diminishing of people's civil liberties based on factors such as age, sex, sexual orientation, or religious views - that's difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really?
We've passed the days of "cultural norms" and have entered the era of universal human rights. This is a recent transition, but it isn't hard to spot hate speech or hate crimes.
How about advocating for the diminishing of people's civil liberties based on factors such as age, sex, sexual orientation, or religious views - that's difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really?
We've passed the days of "cultural norms" and have entered the era of universal human rights. This is a recent transition, but it isn't hard to spot hate speech or hate crimes.
Your hate speech is some other group cultural norm.
The hate speech censorship is just how bullies managed to use political correctness to be able to bully again.
The hate speech censorship is just how bullies managed to use political correctness to be able to bully again.
can we stop saying/writing "formerly known as twitter" - please?! Also, Starlink is overcoming this without an issue.
> Also, Starlink is overcoming this without an issue.
Seems like they're having issues:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/04/starlink_performs_a_1...
Seems like they're having issues:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/04/starlink_performs_a_1...
It's a terribly unclear name, though. I had no idea what "No X in Brazil" referred to. I had to clink on the article to find out I don't care.
Starlink announced they are following the Brazilian Supreme Court decision and blocking Twitter... So they aren't overcoming anything.
Absent that, it looks like someone just forgot to fill in a template; it's a _terrible_ name, perhaps the worst bit of naming from an ergonomics point of view since Google decided to create an un-google-able programming language.
I think the Starlink constellation still has enough V1 satellites to need ground stations near where they are providing service a lot of the time.
For now, Starlink still requires nearby ground stations.
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-starlink-x-block-complianc...
> Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.
> Had Starlink continued to disobey de Moraes by providing access, telecommunications regulator Anatel could eventually have seized equipment from Starlink’s 23 ground stations that ensure the quality of its internet service, Arthur Coimbra, an Anatel board member, said on a video call from his office in Brasilia.
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-starlink-x-block-complianc...
> Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.
> Had Starlink continued to disobey de Moraes by providing access, telecommunications regulator Anatel could eventually have seized equipment from Starlink’s 23 ground stations that ensure the quality of its internet service, Arthur Coimbra, an Anatel board member, said on a video call from his office in Brasilia.