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.

  • baatliwala@lemmy.worldEnglish
    331·
    7 months ago

    This coward blocks accounts on Government request in India but not in Brazil? Guess he knows how to butter his bread.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.eeEnglish
      391·
      7 months ago

      Modi is right wing. Brazils current leadership is not.

      Its pretty simple math for him.

  • nutsack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    7 months ago

    That’s funny I’m pretty sure it’s still really easy to get banned for no reason

  • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3132·
    7 months ago

    I’m not a Musk fan by any longshot, but does anyone else think that the State having the power to order social media account bans is a bit… excessive?

    • c10l@lemmy.worldEnglish
      561·
      7 months ago

      Note that this is not “just banning someone’s account because they don’t like it”. These are people involved in criminal investigations. Shutting them down is meant to plug their criminal activities so society doesn’t get further damaged by them while the police and judiciary work on actually convicting them.

      As an aside: I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I disagree with your view but your question was asked respectfully and in good faith.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        623·
        7 months ago

        Correction. They’ve been accused of criminal activity but as far as I understand it they haven’t actually been found in guilty yet.

        • c10l@lemmy.worldEnglish
          241·
          7 months ago

          That’s what I said. They’re under a criminal investigation.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            321·
            7 months ago

            You don’t punish people prior to the completion of the investigation.

            What if they turn out to be innocent you’ve now just violated their rights for no reason

            • c10l@lemmy.worldEnglish
              31·
              7 months ago

              You don’t punish them per se, but you do sanction them.

              For example, Bolsonaro can’t leave the country even though he hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet.

              Also, someone who’s been accused of murder will probably be arrested preventatively if the judge in charge has reason to believe they will reincide before the proceedings are through.

              These things happen all the time and they’re designed to protect society from further damage from criminals who haven’t yet been fully judged and processed.

    • cedarmesa@lemmy.worldEnglish
      371·
      7 months ago

      Absolutely not. This is an example of the state doing its job as intended. There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech and never has been. Absolute free speech would end the human experiment. The real question here is if one human can hoard enough paper power tokens should they be more powerful than nations and unaccountable to nations laws. Musk is asserting the divine right of kings. This supreme court justice is asserting the just power of democracy.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      301·
      7 months ago

      Not really. All extremists should have severely limited platforms to spread their hate in, and who else would see to that, if not democratically elected officials? Even if not democratically elected, I would personally trust almost any even remotely democratic government’s official to enforce something like that than to trust in some edgelord billionaire twat like Musk to do anything other than go the other way and signal boost that extremism instead.

      And since I believe this, it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Brazil for this very thing, especially if a far-right populist like Bolsonaro (or anyone Musk likes for that matter) is involved.

      But you might hold different views. And fair enough. But I firmly believe we should not give platforms to extremists or traitorous assholes, period. And should work to actively limit that, instead.

      I.e I would not like to see, for example, ISIS leaders sharing their beheading videos on any social media platform. By that same logic, I would not like any other kind of extremism there either. I can’t just cherry-pick which kind of extremism I like to be limited and banned. If I believe that there exists entities or influences I would not like to spread, I should accept that those influences exist outside of my personally agreed views of what should be limited.

    • goalless_banana@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      7 months ago

      Because they’re infringing the law of that country! In order to operate a business in any country any company must follow the local regulations! Elon Musk does not complain when the Saudi Government orders X to ban anyone for any reason, guess who backs Musk’s companies?

    • eardon@lemmy.caEnglish
      21·
      7 months ago

      Yes.

      But most people here think it’s okay to censor people who disagree with them.

    • quindraco@lemm.eeEnglish
      56·
      7 months ago

      Yes, it’s deeply weird that a judge would have that power. It’s like forcing a grocery store to ban a customer who’s been throwing tomatoes at people, rather than just locking up the tomato-thrower. Why would a judge have the power to punish someone who committed no crime and is just set-dress8ng for a criminal case?

      Put another way: why is this judge ordering X to ban the accounts instead of ordering the account holders to delete their accounts?

      • GreatDong3000@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        7 months ago

        Because they have fled Brazil so there is no way to force them to delete their accounts. Meanwhile twitter is a business with actual offices in Brazil so they should follow the court orders.

    • jaybone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      320·
      7 months ago

      And to the people saying this is ok, is it also okay for china to have accounts banned? Russia, Philippines, brazil, Iran, the US under Trump? Israel? Who gets to decide which countries’ legal systems have this authority?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            7 months ago

            And also, as in this case, a good way todismiss concern trolling and/or unconstructive false equivalence.

            That oppressive regimes might use social media moderation to stifle dissent doesn’t mean that an egalitarian society shouldn’t use the same tools to protect the people from the proliferation of legitimately harmful extremism.