A standoff between Elon Musk and Brazil escalated on Sunday when a Supreme Court judge opened an inquiry into the billionaire after Musk said he would reactivate accounts on the social media platform X that the judge had ordered blocked.

Musk, the owner of X and a self-declared free speech absolutist, has challenged a decision by Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordering the blocking of certain accounts. He has said X, formerly known as Twitter, would lift all the restrictions because they were unconstitutional and called on Moraes to resign.

Neither Musk, X nor Brazilian authorities have disclosed which social media accounts were ordered blocked. X first posted about the order to block on Saturday but it was not immediately clear when the order was issued.

Moraes is investigating “digital militias” that have been accused of spreading fake news and hate messages during the government of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and is also leading an investigation into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro.

  • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    What happens when people with the opposite political views (Bolsonaro, for example) come to power and label you the extremist that no longer is allowed access to a platform to spread your message?

    Just trying to point out that this is the same language and reasoning that, for example, the neofascist regime of Argentina from 1976-1984 used in order to pacify the public for the disappearance and torture of 30,000 people, mostly leftists.

    We can be better than them.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      “But the other guy might twist it for his own purposes!” is never a good reason not to protect the people from the proliferation of dangerous extremism.

      Especially not when the other guy is someone like Bolsonaro who is a literal fascist and thus, given the power to do so, will limit speech critical of himself and his cronies no matter what anyone else does or doesn’t do.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        They were fascists too dumbass. That’s the point. In the modern geopolitical sphere, the far right has more centrist support than the far left. Just like with Hitler, or in my example, Videla, etc. They promise security and propagandize, often threatening journalists and humanitarian aid workers like we see Israel doing.

        The moment they come to power again within the confines of the system and these laws are already in effect, it gives them the power to crack down on whatever form of ‘extremism’ they want to, now with legal precedent. The problem with fascists is that they are inherently bad actors in a democracy and people must be taught as much so as to avoid such a rise occurring again.

        Just like with the USA War on Drugs, the best thing to do is educate people, not try to ‘protect’ them like with DARE

        The problem is that its not the fascist leader alone, but the proliferation of fascist ideals and sympathies in the population that leads to fascist uprisings. The goal should be to educate about what those are and why they’re bad and fallacious and provably wrong, not to play big brother like China.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          The problem with fascists is that they are inherently bad actors in a democracy

          That’s my point: they will do their oppressive acts in bad faith no matter what, so not doing something positive due to that is all downside with no upside.

          If there’s not a law/precedent for them to twist, they’ll just make one or even pretend there is one. Meanwhile, limiting the spread of dangerous extremist propaganda DOES make a positive difference.

          The problem is that its not the fascist leader alone, but the proliferation of fascist ideals and sympathies in the population that leads to fascist uprisings

          Which is why combatting their propaganda is necessary and just.

          The goal should be to educate about what those are and why they’re bad and fallacious and provably wrong, not to play big brother like China.

          That makes perfect sense on the surface, but in reality, sufficiently intense and persistent propaganda can’t just be educated away.

          If someone has been told every day by every person they trust that LGBTQ+ people are inherently evil and want to convert and/or molest children, educating them about the fact that vulnerable minorities such as LGBTQ+ people are no more criminal than people in general and are in fact much more likely to be the VICTIMS of crime than anyone else won’t convince them.

          Like covid-19 or a Trump presidency, prevention is far more effective than education after infection when it comes to harmful propaganda.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s going to happen regardless and as such is not a valid excuse to not do what is right.

              Taken to it’s logical conclusion, your approach would result in never legislating or regulations at all, since there’s no laws that the fascists won’t try to twist to their bad faith purposes.

              • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                So the solution is to take away one of their human rights? I just have to disagree and would argue this is your own authoritarian tendency winning over your leftist one. You’re allowing fear of the unknown to guide your decisions concerning human rights. Reminds me of some people in Germany that feared Jews.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Free speech is a right. A platform to use to more effectively spread hateful and fraudulent speech isn’t.

                  Your comparison between Nazis oppressing Jews and not actively encouraging Nazi rhetoric to flourish is not just wrong, it’s absolutely ridiculous and potentially dangerous.

                  Perhaps this handy comic can help you understand why a free society should not give out megaphones to bigots who don’t want a free society:

                  • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    You’re absolute missing Popper’s point with this infographic. He doesn’t say that anybody preaching intolerance should be jailed, he says specifically those that incite violence. Those that “answer arguments with fists and guns” not random rightists spouting bs on Twitter. If there’s a legitimate case against them for inciting violence, rebellion, etc, it should be done in an open court room, not behind closed doors and without criminal defense.

                    You’re a clown and you’re supporting clownish shit in the name of fear.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Well, if they rise to power via legitimate democratic means, then by all means it is what we deserve, and I will either work against it, as an extremist, or move to a less hostile country towards people of my kind, be it political, racial or some other aspect. I’m not saying I’m better than whoever gets labeled an extremist. I am saying that whatever the current political or ideological or whatever climate is, if it is democratic, it is the environ in which I exist, and c’est la vie.

      I have a hard time believing a fascist or otherwise extremist powers would take hold of my country, but I’m not naive so as to think it impossible.

      I, same as anyone else, simply exist within a complex framework that isn’t under my control.

      That being said, I don’t think I hold any “right” or “correct” or necessarily “better” views or ideologies, it just so happens majority right now share that set of beliefs and I happen not to be an extremist in that sense.

      At any time I could become one, and I do not think it would be wrong. It would be exactly as “correct”, I would just happen to hold stances against that status quo. That doesn’t change my initial reasoning at all. I have to believe people are mostly rational, emphatic, sensible and good in general, which would translate to my stances having low chances of becoming deemed extremist. If that happens, I would just accept it as entirely understandable, from that point of view, if I was banned from places. And work either against it, or moving my life elsewhere, where there wouldn’t be extremist (from my point of view, not general) powers in rule. And if that was not possible, I’d be imprisoned or killed, which, if happens, was always out of my control, and such is life.

      Your argument would require anyone that subscribes to it to believe to be better and more right in the things one beliefs. I do not think so, so I can, with clear mind and consciousness, live with this stance.

      Edit: Note that I originally used the word democratic very consciously. Anything outside that bound, would be an entirely different ball game, and that is for wiser and more philosophically minded heads. I consider the realities I live in and which I know, because that is the bound of my experience and understanding. I’m a simple man. But I do hold beliefs, grounded in what I know, and those I like to share if prompted.

      Your concern is of course valid, too. Just not something that is necessarily against my stance here. It’s just a hypothetical, which I think I have considered enough to still stand this ground.

      Edit2: to answer your question, it would play by the same rule, if they banned me, and I would understand it for the same reasons I understand it now. I wouldn’t agree with it, is the difference, but that doesn’t change the logic of it.

      Of course they would ban me, if most of the people thought I was an extremist. I wouldn’t think it my privilege in that scenario to be able to share my extremist views. I would find other channels or fight against that system, or just move to a better suited environment. But I would not think it unfair from a general view, it’s exactly as understandable as the Bolsonaros or whoevers of the world now being banned.