• tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    So the X accounts belonged to legitimate political opponents, they weren’t spreading disinformation?

    I don’t know about the judicial system in Brazil but they don’t seem that corrupted…

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        How do you feel about the “Don’t say gay” bill? Because that’s exactly the sort of abuse I’m talking about.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m discussing principles - they aren’t limited to Brazil. If you want to explicitly only discuss the exact situation in Brazil then this isn’t the thread for you.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 month ago

                This thread is the one I started with my top-level comment that I invite you to read to know what you’re replying to.

                And just a bit of an FYI - people can discuss components of an article that don’t specifically relate to every part of the article. For example - I could raise the issue of “freedom of speech” and how it relates to any nation generally without discussing the specific case in Brazil. Isn’t that fun and interesting! Or would you rather I just circle-jerk “hur hur musk bad”?

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  As you can see the topics you tried to bring up nobody is agreeing with you. Because it doesn’t make sense to bring them up in this post.

                  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    As you can see the topics you tried to bring up nobody is agreeing with you.

                    So you do just want a circle-jerk!

                    Huuur durrr Elon bad! Suck it space-man!

                    That better? Will I get the juicy “likes” now?

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 month ago

      So the X accounts belonged to legitimate political opponents, they weren’t spreading disinformation?

      I don’t want the government deciding who is or is not a “legitimate political opponent”. That double-edged-sword swings both ways and cuts very easily.

      • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think there are a few simple criteria to discriminate between legitimate opponents and others: spreading disinformation, bad faith, populism, the absence of a coherent political discourse, etc. If a government identifies illegitimate opponents based on these criteria, I’m ok with that.

        So, what makes you think these accounts were legitimate political opponents?

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Neat - let’s go with that.

          According to Trump the MSM is “fake news” and thus spreading disinformation. We’ll shutdown CNN and MSNBC immediately and levy heavy fines on other stations that continue to spread dangerous content. It’s also a fact that he won the 2020 election and people claiming otherwise are also spreading dangerous misinformation that threatens our democracy - they should be silenced as well - to protect the nation.

          Good plan. This will go well.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts. The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts.

              Why would you think that I would? Have you not understood literally anything I’ve been saying?

              The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.

              What a remarkably simple view of the world you have. It’s like you think this is a sitcom plot. Do you want Musk to wear black and the judge to wear white so that you have an easier time recognizing who is the villain?

              As I said in my original post - both sides can be wrong. One side being wrong doesn’t make the other side right.

              • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Your argument that other people are engaging in black and white thinking when you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable is funny.

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable

                  Explain how that’s my position. Please use references to support your argument.

                  Because that’s not my position. Nor have I stated it as my position. I recommend searching for the word “risk” when reading my prior comments.

                  EDIT: Oh - sorry… I guess I’m just off-topic in here. ELON BAD LOL

                  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.

          • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You seem to believe that Trump saying “fake news!” is enough to consider that something is actually fake news. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking can verify this kind of affirmation and decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong. There’s a difference between a truth and a belief, but your argument seems to equate the two.

            If a judge in Brazil says an account should be banned because it spreads disinformation, I can go and check what was posted and decide if it’s indeed disinformation. Now I might not have time to verify every affirmation like this so I tend to trust the judicial system of any country by default, unless I have reason to believe they can’t be trusted.