I know the cultural context and respect it as different from my own.

But it will never stop being viscerally disgusting to my personal sensibilities.

Every time I just suck it up. Pun intended.

Ramen. And they are slurping like an 85 year old man who hasn’t had to care in 6 decades.

Hardly worth mentioning at this point, but this is illegal.

This works. I ran a linux distro in off hours on my work laptop for years this way.

How many bad forms of transportation do you think he has to saddle the world with to sate his ego about the hyperloop turning out to be a totally unworkable lie?

Twitter is an international company that officially operates in multiple countries in multiple languages with large numbers of users in those countries. Truth social is a tiny media network operating in a single country in essentially one language. I don’t believe for a second you don’t understand the difference, and it is such a silly and irrelevant thing to bring into this conversation that I can only conclude you aren’t arguing in good faith at this point, and you’re just trying to waste my time. You have a good one.

First of all, who are “they” in this scenario?

Because I don’t think you mean the Brazilian government, because it’s relatively obvious.

There is no need to ban or censure speech for reasons of inciting violence if it doesn’t have a big enough audience to actually do that.

And secondly, Truth Social’s tiny audience is almost completely US citizens, who generally speaking don’t speak or understand Portuguese, and the network doesn’t officially operate in the country in any capacity.

You are correct.

Brazil is not a totalitarian regime. The resistance to deplatforming in this case isn’t the same as, say, resisting deplatforming democracy activists in Taiwan, which X would likely not do.

The context matters. Brazil is a democratic nation with checks and balances that has defined what it considers illegal speech. X is of course, entitled to disagree with that assessment. And Brazil is free to correctly assess that X is not following its laws and ban it from operating there. That’s all there is to it. If the Brazilian people think the government’s definition of illegal speech is wrong, this government will be booted out in the next election. It’s that simple.

This is the danger. Propaganda is not the issue. Illegal speech is. Speech that incites violence, reveals classified information, or endangers innocent people.

Lemmy is not a company, but if, for example, Lemmy starts posting the names, addresses, and home security details of Brazilian officials, you can rest assured they would block those instances as well.

X being a single corporate entity gives it different responsibilities because it operates as a business, but either way, the platform flouting the law will and should be blocked. Free speech is not a free-for-all and has limitations.

If they flout the law of those countries, they will. And they should.

Social media companies do not get to be above government because they are social media companies. The government’s actions are the actions taken by the representatives chosen by the people in free and fair elections. THAT is where the people’s voice matters. Not on an opaque social media platform. If a car company decides they think a government safety restriction is wrong, they don’t get to NOT implement it. If they do, they get shut down. Social media companies are NO different.

No company with no accountability to anyone but its shareholders should EVER be above a government of the people. Do you want a dystopia? Because that’s how you get a dystopia.

Sure, at the surface level of tweeting back and forth, there is nothing vile. But the very act of using the platform funds an agent of chaos that is doing very real harm, and to ignore that because it is inconvenient is at the most charitable interpretation a selfish and callous act. There are other means of discourse, and those with input that is valuable will follow you.

…which is a dangerous violation of the freedom of privacy and has resulted in the imprisonment of government critics in many countries like Saudi Arabia, where X has happily given user identifying information on request.

Also, nobody’s voice is taken away. The government isn’t making people stop talking. The originally requested deplatformed users were more than welcome to go to another platform. And the shutting down of X in general? They’ve shut down a platform that was blatantly and flagrantly violating the law. There are hundreds of others platforms to choose from. Heck, you can still go outside, go to the park, and yell. Always could. Do not conflate freedom of speech with the entitlement to a particular audience.

Sure, it’s not as neat and clean as that and I acknowledge that, but at the end of the day, a tautological approach to either free speech or censorship is detrimental in either direction. Worries about censorship going too far ARE justified, but there ARE situations where it is necessary, and more exacting and precise public discussions about and decisions on what is fair game for censorship and what isn’t is the solution, not the understandably visceral reaction to censorship in general.

Democratic doesn’t mean libertarian. Democratic means that everyone gets a voice in deciding the direction things go. The people made their choice at the ballot box, and that was Lula, and Lula seems to be on board with the court’s decision and isn’t inclined to push legislation or executive action to change it. If people decide they don’t like the decision that’s been made, their government will adjust or it will be replaced by another at the ballot box. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

Maybe, just maybe, if your followers aren’t willing to give up something vile because it’s giving them a dopamine hit, they’re not adding as much value to your life as you think.

The government absolutely has the right to cut people off of certain information. If you disagree, try to share some classified secrets, or some child porn and see how well it goes down. The disagreement here is on where the line is drawn on what information falls under that umbrella, and as a sovereign democratic nation, that is Brazil’s call to make, not musk’s or yours. You might have an argument if this was a dictatorship/one party state, but it is not. Still, I’m sure you were equally vocal when Musk was censoring for those.

I mean, some of us haven’t, but most voters have the memory span of a goldfish.

But without a Joestar to do it for you, could you handle the Pillar Men yourself? 🤔

Lucky for him nobody has drawn public attention to it.

RFK Jr: “This is a cool story, right? People will think I’m cool?”

Brain Worm: “Yes! Yes! And tell them about the bear!”