The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has said he hopes the crisis surrounding the social network X in Brazil might teach the world that “it isn’t obliged to put up with [Elon] Musk’s far-right free-for-all just because he is rich”.

Lula’s comments to the network CNN Brasil came after the supreme court voted unanimously on Monday to uphold the ban on X, which is now largely inaccessible in one of its biggest global markets.

The suspension was first ordered on Friday as a result of the company’s refusal to obey court orders requiring the removal of profiles accused of spreading disinformation and for the social network to name a local legal representative.

MBFC
Archive

  • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    190
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Lula is so fucking great. He’s literally just backing up the courts that are applying the law fairly and as-written, which is more than I can say for most leaders.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t get me wrong, Lula is correct on this. But he’s still a scummy politician who has a questionable past

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        85
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Raising 20 million Brazilians out of poverty, while making his country the 8th largest economy in the world? I’m sure he’s as corrupt as any Brazilian politician, but none of them have anything that comes even close to that to show for it.

        • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s politics. You could have some shoplifting charge from 40 years ago and people will yell about how you’re the worst and attempt to invalid everything you do because of it.

        • acockworkorange
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          He also got arrested for one of the largest corruption scandals in the history of Brazil. It’s a complex person. We can criticize his vices and praise his virtues at the same time.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Oh arrested? Wow, only guilty people are arrested by states led by their fascist political rivals. If he’s arrested, he must be guilty. That’s how justice works.

            You could’ve said “convicted”, but that was annulled and a UN human rights committee found that:

            The committee concluded that prosecutors and the lead judge in the investigation, Sergio Moro, showed bias in Lula’s case, violating his right to be presumed innocent.

            I’m not a fan of politicians in general, but I’d take these charges more seriously if the people prosecuting them weren’t so flagrantly politically motivated and breaking the rules. Presumably the reason he was tried in the wrong court was because the state was shopping for a judge that wouldn’t give him a fair trial. If he’s that guilty, they’ve muddied the waters by not actually caring about his guilt, and it’s going to be way harder to get anything to stick anymore. Like they were in charge of the whole fucking country, how were they this bad at persecuting him?

            What I do know is that when a fascist like Bolsonaro is that mad at you, you might actually be doing something right.

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    And it doesn’t mean Musk has any valid and useful intelligence. He got handed money early in life, got lucky with PayPal, and now thinks because of all of that, his views on the world matter. They don’t. He’s a piece of shit and the world should reject him among many others.

  • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Over the past year Musk has removed all masks and clearly believes he can operate beyond the law. His motives are clearly to watch the world burn. He is an extremely dangerous, unpredictable and powerful man, threatening democracy across the globe.

    Our governments need to protect us from him. Brazil’s being brave here, I hope they’re just the first.

    • daepicgamerbro69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No. You’re giving him too much credit and actually making it seem like mr. Musk is in any sense of the word capable of self-reflection. He is a burned out, incompetent tech-junkie and nothing but a hypeman for expensive toys someone else develops. He might be allegedly blackmailed by Russian kompromat or just plainly stupid enough to believe the propagandistic image of strong Putin/Russia. The only scary thing about him is, he never takes a fall for his numerous blunders. Yet, before first-worlders become the ones paying for his mistakes he will rest comfortably upon his dollar throne.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Be that as it may, the man has influence and it would be incredibly foolish to discount this because he’s a fucking moron. Sadly, the world is full of extremely incompetent billionaires, and they hold a shocking amount of influence over the world, whether it’s through collusion on layoffs, enforcing RTO in tandem, cutting green initiatives within a month of each other, etc.

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

        Money is basically a vehicle for power and this a ketamine junkie in a garbage truck speeding through every intersection in the world and daring anyone to try and stop him. At least Brazil is trying.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      His motives are clearly to watch the world burn.

      His motives are money and power. He is indifferent to if the world burns in the process.

      • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        He’s already got all the money and most of the power. Now his hobby is far right extremism and anarchy.

        • NotAnOnionAtAll@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          At some point accumulating more money is no longer about added utility and more like a kind of cynical game score. And musky boy is clearly chasing that high score.

          • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s been said, and perhaps it has been true. But when you’re the richest man in the world by a significant margin, you have literally won at money and to remain competitive you need to move onto other things. Like the power of politics, and working to destabilise multiple countries at once.

        • sandbox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m an anarchist, and Musk’s behaviour is the farthest possible thing from anarchy. Anarchism is all about working together to build a better world where everyone has all of their needs met, not being a selfish, caustic, aggressive asshole. Elon would have no chance of getting consensus to join any commune anywhere in the world. Unless there’s some insane libertarian commune somewhere.

          • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Anarchism is all about working together to build a better world where everyone has all of their needs met,

            Hmm, I was working with the classic disctionary definition which is “a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.”

            But you’re right, anarchism does have that other meaning, so perhaps a better word would be “chaos”.

            His actions in supporting Trump in the US, promoting hate and extermist views on X globally, and encouraging civil war in the UK do all fit a chaos agenda. That’s not about money - at least, not that I can see.

            He is one of the world’s most dangerous people, however, and I don’t say that lightly. Not least because of his history of being unpredictable.

            More governments should follow Brazil’s example and push back.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          He doesn’t have all the money. I have some money, Brazilians have money. It’s not enough to have most of the money and power if there’s more he can get.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              And yet he still wants more. It’s not enough to have most of the money, he needs to have all the money.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      In fairness, it isn’t like banning one social media website (and a purveyor of misinformation and disinformation at that) will have either national security concern or threatening fundamental freedoms in Brazil. It could be why Brazil had been so bold.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is why it’s important to have decentralized social media. We cannot have anyone unilaterally deciding what gets talked about and what doesn’t.

    • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ordinarily, I might agree. However, this suspension is because musk refused to appoint a legal representative for the company in Brazil, IAW Brazilian law. That’s a reasonable ask for a company that’s actively doing business in the country. If a billionaire* crybaby refuses to follow the law, then he gets to deal with the consequences. FA meet FO.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s not what the article says, the article says it’s because X refused to ban users and because of that. Not just because of that

        • Tyfud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          4 months ago

          You should read up on the whole ordeal. The article is failing to summarize the lengthy legal battle that’s been happening between them for years since Musk’s takeover.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well, from what I understand when X appoints a legal representative they will then be held responsible for refusing to ban. Is that wrong?

    • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Your right to free speech ends when it turns into terrorism, racism or a call for a coup.

      There are some things that should be banned, such as the twitter accounts that promoted the attempt at a coup in Brazil in Jan 8 2023.

      These are the accounts that the judge asked to be banned. After Twitter didn’t comply they started sending fines and eventually outright banning it.

      Free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything. It means the government cannot punish you for your political views. But they can, and must punish racism and anti-democracy speech.

      Also, it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

      • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

        Could someone expand upon this? I’m don’t know much about tech, but the idea that FOSS decentralized platforms can’t be banned does seem to make sense right? Ban one, another one will pop up, etc. What am I not getting here?

        • CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’ll admit I don’t know how Lemmy works in communicating to each other. However, Internet traffic is labeled in some manner. It has to be to ensure data traverses the web of routers we call the Internet. Lemmy instances have to identify each other to share their information to each other.

          Just ban whatever traffic Lemmy instances are looking for.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Also, it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

        Yes, if banning protocols is acceptable for you.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            If it’s acceptable, then a wildcard ban of undetected protocols and the “bad” ones from among the detected is possible. China-style.

            That is, everything is possible.

      • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        If what these accounts said was so dangerous then why didn’t the government go after the operators of the accounts and arrest them? Instead they tried to silence them by banning them from Twitter. That would only bring more validity to what these accounts were saying if the government has to tell foreign companies to silence them instead of challenging their speech.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          If yelling “fire” in a movie theatre is so dangerous why not allow people to do it and don’t ban it and instead just arrest them after the stampede?

          • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s a bad comparison. Yelling “fire” in a crowd to induce a panic is illegal and can lead to arrest. But that happens after you actually yell “fire” not before you might yell “fire”. In your example you say ban yelling “fire” when inducing a panic is already banned. Do you want people banned because of pre-crime?

            • fartemoji@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              So I agree with you about the whole “arresting people after they yell fire and not before” thing, but we’re talking about people who attempted a coup here, these aren’t hypothetical pre-crimes.

              To your earlier point about going after the people who actually did the coup:

              https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-64299892

              According to this BBC article, 39 people were indicted within about a week of the attack

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

              According to Wikipedia, 86 people have been convicted and sentenced to jail time.

              I’m sure there are better numbers but I don’t speak Portuguese so I’m not going to find them.

              Also, while this conflict did begin with Brazil wanting them to ban accounts who helped organize the coup attempt, x was banned because they refuse to appoint a Brazilian legal representative.

              https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkmpe53l6jo

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                4 months ago

                but we’re talking about people who attempted a coup here, these aren’t hypothetical pre-crimes

                We’re talking about the entire country of Brazil — 200 million people — being cut off from using X.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  We’re talking about the entire country of Brazil — 200 million people — being cut off from using X.

                  Companies that don’t follow the laws of a country don’t get to operate in that country. The entire country of the United States - 300 million people - are cut off from enjoying Kinder Surprise. Are you equally outraged about that?

                  When a company says “Lol, we’re not going to have a way for you to hold us accountable” then a country is obviously going to shut them down. They’re not going to let a company ignore their sovereignty like that.

                • ochi_chernye@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah, it’s too bad it’s only 200 million, and only “X”. All the billionaire-controlled, black-box content algorithm social media sites are a cancer on humanity. Nobody’s freedom is being impinged upon by banning them; they’re the private fiefdoms of oligarchs, who blatantly wield them in service of their own agendas. Banning them is the sensible thing to do, and I can only hope that other governments follow suit.

                • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Like if exactly 200 million people could afford eletronics (saying from experience) or caring about Twitter at all.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              people are banned from doing things because they did things. e.g. if you DUI you get banned from future driving not just punished for the past. Hackers get banned from the internet etc

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          If what these accounts said was so dangerous then why didn’t the government go after the operators of the accounts and arrest them?

          Oh, is X willing to help them find the operators of the accounts? Or are you suggesting they do something impossible instead of something actionable?

          If the owners of the accounts aren’t operating in Brazil (likely) then there is little Brazil can do to go after them. X is operating in Brazil, so Brazil has the authority to go after X if they refuse to do anything about it.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Given the state of Xitter, I would argue that his control of Starlink is significantly more dangerous.

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    His wealth also doesn’t mean we need to accept his wealth as valid.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s so Weird how Next Week the US will Find Oil in Brazil and oust Lula!

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    In so many movies that revolves around what would happen if a multi billionaire… Turned EVIL

    Well now we know

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      4 months ago

      You don’t get to a billion dollars by being ethical in the first place. At the very least, they are all willing to exploit the labour of hundreds or thousands or more.

  • graeghos_714@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Elon is the tech version of Murdoch and is more dangerous because of his worldwide access through Twitter. Unfortunately the extremists will have more of a voice and propaganda will overwhelm the media. Since the media is controlled by billionaires they have no interest in exposing them

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

      Elon is more dangerous because he’s a US government contractor which means his incessent law breaking and bullshittery will mean the US government will go to bat for him in a conflict

      Wouldn’t want those military secrets getting out