Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Isn't it about the people who invaded government buildings on January 8 2923 because they claimed Jair Bolsonaro won the election much like the January 6 attack in the USA after Trump lost?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta...

The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military?

I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases.

And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro.

And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-tw...



As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.


Maybe there was no need to do so because they banned the accounts themselves. They even banned the acting president's account.

https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension


Yes, in the U.S. the obedient capitalists act as proxy censors for the government, in exchange for campaign donations, preferential tax treatment, and weak regulatory enforcement.


Proxy censors for the gov't? The US president represents the government, yet the company banned him.

Their shareholders don't want controversies screwing up their investment, so the management acted accordingly in the company's best interest.


Gosh, who will think of the shareholders?!


I wouldn't call lies controversies.


[flagged]


I'm not sure what you intend for me to infer from this context-free link. It doesn't seem to include any examples of the government ordering Twitter to ban certain accounts, although it does have a few of the suggestions regarding content I mentioned.


They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.


And what would happen if they did not comply?

It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I


That's a stretch. They could have decided twitter was non compliant and started treating them a little less gently but would they order content be removed or issue fines or some other direct punishment? Probably not.



Yeah, this article is really very imaginative.


If you look at the revelations from Zuckerberg‘s letter this week, you will see that they were not good faith recommendations. They were highly aggressive demands made in forceful ways. Remember, the administration that issued these demands is also in control of the agencies that regulate the same company. For example, the FTC, who could determine that the company is acting anti-competitively or whatever else. They are in a position of power above this company, and therefore, even if they had made the suggestion in a friendly way, it would still be from a position of power that could compel them.


Good faith meaning they believed the analysis of likely disinformation was correct and not politically motivated.


You are not so aware then.


Nope.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: