Freedom of Speech and Social Media Platforms

1. 89

   My Esotericposted 8 months ago

   I started this to discuss what to do about unmoderated social media platforms such as X, "Truth" Social, and Telegram.
   
   What prompted this was an article about the CEO of Telegram getting arrested in France for not moderating his platform.  The gist is Telegram, like Elon Musk's X is a platform for people to put anything on it and dissimilate it to the world. 
   
   This would not be a problem if users limited their posts to legal discourse.  But, posting pedophilia is not legal in any country, I think, nor is speech that calls others to commit acts of violence. While X may prohibit some forms of pornography, Telegram does not.
   
   The question is what responsibility do the platforms owners have in making sure that kind of illegal activity is not published?  It is a dicey question with tons of ramifications for countries who believe in free speech.
   
   Having thought about this a while, my initial take is that providing a mechanism for others to do illegal things makes them an accomplice to whatever illegal activity is occurring.  For example, if Telegram allows a user to post child porn, then both are committing a crime. 
   
   I could be dissuaded, but would need good logic to do so.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/24/tech/tel … index.html

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      We need government censorship and approval for all sources of information being posted online.
      
      Those who make posts with misinformation should be held accountable, to include forfeiture of all possessions, fines, and loss of freedom.
      
      Just like in the UK... anything you post can and will be used against you in a court of law... intent does not matter... so long as it can be construed as hostile or harmful by any reader, the poster should be hit with the full weight of the law.
      
      Laws must be created that limit a person's ability to post something just because they want to.  We need to have government censors.
      
      As to Pedophilia... Twitter was rampant with it when Musk took over... Twitter was the #1 social media site used for child pornography and trafficking.
      
      Elon Musks says the issue of child sexual exploitation content on Twitter is 'Priority #1'
      https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/new … 668308.cms
      
      UK and US raid “dark web” of child pornography: 337 arrests in 38 countries
      https://en.mercopress.com/2019/10/17/uk … e_vignette
      
      See it... report it:
      Anonymously report suspected child sexual abuse images or videos
      https://www.iwf.org.uk/en/uk-report/

      replyreport
      1. 89

         My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         Off topic.  The topic is: "should the owners of social media platforms be held responsible for the content on their platforms?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            No... no I do not believe the owners should be held responsible.
            
            People should be responsible for what they post.
            
            X (Twitter) has Community Notes that counter any misleading or misinformation.  X will block or ban people who attack/insult other people.
            
            You have choice, you have the freedom to be on X, or not... the government should not be able to censor information.  That is a key difference between a free society and a tyrannical government.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               So, you disagree with the example from the Supreme Court that yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  When that happens are the theater owners held responsible and either shut down or jailed?  Or is the one yelling held responsible?
                  
                  It's a good example.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                     Did the theater owners know that the idiot was going to yell fire?  If not, then know, they aren't responsible.  Of course, you know that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                        Yes I do.  Now...if X doesn't know that someone is going to post child porn on their site, are they liable? 
                        
                        The theatre owner is home in bed when someone yelled "Fire" and they were able to yell it many times.  So is Musk when the kiddie porn hits.  The theatre does not hire someone to quickly take down anyone yelling "Fire"...does Musk have to?
                        
                        How about government be responsible.  Have the charge to immediately post a retort when kiddie porn, or misinformation, is found, and notify Musk so he can take it down (No, government shall NEVER have the ability to close down media, whether social or not, whether lies or not, whether porn or not).

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                           But Musk must ban the person and remove the post.
                           Which sounds familiar.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                              And right now, the laws are such that he doesn't have to.

                              replyreport
                        2. 89

                           My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                           Now you seem to be starting to understand.
                           
                           You Ask: "if X doesn't know that someone is going to post child porn on their site, are they liable? ". The answer is, of course not.  So let me reverse the question back to you .
                           
                           if X does know that someone is posting child porn on their site and does nothing about nor prevents future such postings,  are they liable?   The answer to me is obvious - YES, they are liable (or should be).
                           
                           Using NEVER almost always gets you into trouble.  Let's say there is a magazine dedicated to child porn and that is all they publish.  Are you telling me that it is your opinion that they can publish with no consequences from the government, like shutting them down.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                              To you it is obvious, but that's because you put your opinion above all others.  The next obvious question, the one you ignore, is the definition of child porn; is a video of a 6 month old infant crawling out of their diaper porn?  Some will say so.
                              
                              The issue of child pornography is a very sensitive one.  It cannot be tolerated, but it isn't always clear cut, either.  But more important is that "slippery slope" for I firmly believe that you chose that example only because it is so touchy; the real subject is to ban any posts you don't like.  Say, some of Trump's "lies".
                              
                              So yes, ban all the child porn you like, but stop there.  No more censorship of any kind.  And do not go after that site owner; they are NOT responsible for what someone posts.  You want someone to take up the gray, undefined porn, let the government do it.  If government wants such things gone, let the government do it.  Government, just like Musk and the others, will find out it is impossible to know what every post is, what pornography is, and what should be banned.
                              
                              SCOTUS has been unable to define pornography - remember Justice Potter Stewart and his statement "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case [Louis Malle's The Lovers] is not that."? 
                              
                              And yet you want to put Musk in that position.  You're setting him up to fail, giving government an excuse to remove yet another prominent person it doesn't get along with.  I disagree, that's all.
                              
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it … it#History

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                                 Some might say so, but does the law. The law is what we are tailing about, not a few zealots.
                                 
                                 OK, so you now agree the CEO of a platform that knowing allows child porn should be arrested.
                                 
                                 Next topic: Recruiting of terrorist candidates by known terror groups.  That is illegal in at least by the US and its allies.  Is that ok with you that the CEO of a platform should allow that to happen if they know about it?
                                 
                                 We are talking about child porn and not regular porn.  And for child porn, there is definitely a federal (and no doubt state law) law prohibiting it:
                                 
                                 "Child Pornography:
                                 
                                 Under federal law, child pornography is strictly illegal, irrespective of whether it meets the Miller test for obscenity. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction, including photographs, videos, digital or computer-generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, or images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable minor, that involves sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (a person under 18 years old).
                                 
                                 This is codified in several sections of the United States Code, including 18 U.S.C. § 2256, which defines terms related to child exploitation and obscenity."
                                 
                                 While I don't want to go down your rabbit hole of deflection, I will note that for regular pornography the SC has gone beyond Potter and established the Miller test for judges to use.  It is:
                                 
                                 "In the United States, there is no single federal legal definition for "pornography." However, the term is often used to describe sexually explicit material. Federal law focuses on distinguishing between legally permissible adult material and illegal obscenity or child pornography.
                                 
                                 Key Legal Terms Related to Pornography
                                 Obscenity:
                                 
                                 The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Miller v. California (1973), established a three-part test, known as the Miller test, to determine whether material is legally obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. According to this test, material is considered obscene if:
                                 
                                 The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
                                 
                                 The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law.
                                 
                                 The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
                                 
                                 Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, meaning it can be regulated or banned."
                                 
                                 We are not talking about regular porn although I suspect there are specific laws against snuff porn, violent porn, and the such.
                                 
                                 So, NO, I do not want to put Musk in that position.

                                 replyreport
               2. 72

                  Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  What does that have to do with making a post on a social media site?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                     You were talking about free-speech. Well, there is a case where free-speech is limited.

                     replyreport
         2. 74

            Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Come on, Esoteric. Discussions should be allowed to go where they will.
            
            Bottom line: Social media is not news media held to account by editors and subscribers.  Buyer beware. And user beware. You better know the law before you peruse or post.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               Why?  Isn't that one of the reasons for reporting someone to the moderators, not that I would do that in any case.  I only report when they get really abusive or spread dangerous information.

               replyreport
   2. 85

      GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The first question would be, whose definition of "illegal?  The US, the UK, the EU, France, Russia, Brazil, etc.? They all seem to have different definitions of 'legal' communications.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         Illegal - its meaning to be determined by the needs of the time as to be determined by the Party in charge.
         
         Take a gander of the legalese behind Trump's felony convictions... convicted based on an action taken to cover-up another crime that was alleged to be committed, yet that crime has yet to be prosecuted.  And getting 34 counts no less, despite the criminality of it depending on an alleged crime he may never be convicted of.
         
         [EDIT] Also... think of his fraud case.
         
         No plaintiff... the State was the accuser, prosecutor and plaintiff.
         
         The bank was happy it got its money and interest.  The money was used to complete the project it was loaned from the bank for.  All parties were happy with the results.
         
         The more you look into any of the cases he was hit with in NY... the more troubled you may become.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Who mentioned Trump?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               I was using it as an example of how our justice system can, will, work.
               
               Illegal communications will be determined by the Party, whatever they deem as misinformation, you will know when you have posted something they do not approve of when they arrest you for it.
               
               A smart person will just stop commenting and keep their thoughts to themselves, always.

               replyreport
            2. 89

               My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               I don't know, I didn't, lol.

               replyreport
      2. 89

         My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         Sorry, I meant to include my thoughts on that in the first post.
         
         I should have concluded with something like - "an international body of nations who respect the freedom of speech should come up with a clearly defined set of activities that would be banned.  One criteria is that it needs to be illegal activity in each country."
         
         There can be no guesswork in what crosses the line and what doesn't.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            That sounds like a lead-in to an international body codifying what is legal free speech in America. I don't like it.
            
            Back to your OP. Using the current Big Platforms and their efforts as the model, I end up standing with the CEOs.
            
            There should be agreement that they all have misinformation, disinformation, and illegal content moderation policies and protocols. One may not agree with their performance or applaud it, but the effort is there, so the argument is about degrees—arguments of opinions instead of facts.
            
            The latest issue with France and Telegram could be an example of that point. There isn't enough info to form an opinion, yet, but . . .
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 89

               My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               What if it were already illegal in America?
               
               Let me provide one analogy.  I think you would agree there is no freedom-loving nation that legalizes the publication of pedophilia.
               
               Then here is the analogy.  Someone you know rents a room in their house to a stranger. One provision is that they can use the owner's computer in the common room.  The owner is informed by their children that the stranger is watching child sex acts on the computer.  The owner does nothing about it. When the police come to arrest the stranger, is it proper that they arrest the owner as well?

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I'll pass on a pedophilia analogy.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                     Interesting. Why? Does it not describe the issue very well?

                     replyreport
   3. 82

      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Q."What responsibility do the platforms owners have in making sure that kind of illegal activity is not published?"
      
      A. Total.

      replyreport
   4. 83

      peterstreepposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Freedom of speech has it's limits.Hate speech is not freedom of speech.
      Open discussions about child abuse is not freedom of speech.
      Advocating and pushing people to suicide is not freedom of speech.
      
      There is that strange tendency that people are more aggressive hiding behind the anonymity of an avatar and fake name, than that they would do in real life. 
      
      The laws of freedom of speech are in many countries older than the internet. Social Media changed the idea of freedom of speech completely. And just like many laws they have to be adjusted fitting the society.
      
      A publisher is responsible for the authors it represents. And so should social platforms be seen. As publishers, and they should have the end responsibility. That's why it is a good thing why the CEO from Telegram is arrested.
      
      It's a complicated discussion but it is clear that the world wide sociological experiment with social media is turning awry. the brains of teenagers literately change and develop differently when constantly exposed to social media.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, there is such a thing as, Abuse of freedom of speech.

         replyreport
2. 82

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

   Freedom of speech has a purpose:
   It is for the benefit that it brings to the speaker.
   It was not intended for some detriment.
   
   The owner of a social media platform must regulate the content of the site. Those who use the site must follow the rules established by the owner. The owner knows that people are tempted do all sorts of mischievous things since they are anonymous. THEY will get HIM in trouble with the law. He must protect himself!
   
   In a movie theater, the owner assumes no one in the audience will act in a detrimental manner, since none of them are anonymous. They know the owner, the people and the police will deal with them. No one wants to be dealt with.
   
   No one would blame the movie theater owner for the actions of a rogue knucklehead.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Yep.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         But Ken is worried the government will shut down the social media sites or take them over.
         
         So, that you are for this, is making me suspicious.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Which "you" are you referring to?

            replyreport
3. 82

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

   The owner of a social media site should be held accountable according to the law, since individual participants cannot be held accountable.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      That's one way to ensure they all get shut down.  Or taken over by the government.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         why?

         replyreport
   2. 89

      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I beg to differ on the individual's not being held accountable.  If they can be found, they can be prosecuted. The trick, of course, is tracking them down.
      
      That said, I am still of the mind that the owners of the platforms, if they make little or no attempt to moderate their content, are guilty of aiding and abetting  any crime their users commit. 
      
      Now, if they make an honest attempt to curtail such posts, then that is a good defense.  But, neither Musk, the Telegram guy, nor Zuckerberg can get over that hurdle.
      
      Zuckerberg just reported he is sorry he squelched lies that would have killed people.

      replyreport
4. 82

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

   Government overreach is a problem in freedom of speech and social media?
   
   Guess so.
   
   Only the people can hold the govt. accountable.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The government must fear The People, who have the right to redress it's (the government's) grievance against them.
      
      redress: to right a wrong.
      
      grievance synonyms:
      injustice, unjust act, wrong, injury, ill, offense, disservice, unfairness, evil, outrage, atrocity, damage, affront, insult, indignity

      replyreport
   2. 89

      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      That is the idea. Some here seem to think that in America, government is not by the consent of the People.  Well, I am here to tell that even with all its warts, it is still Of the People, By the People, and For the People.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         Well, this is the question, isn't it.

         replyreport
5. 82

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months ago

   Surely, HubPages has staff members to take care of bad posts as soon as someone  reports them.

   replyreport
6. 89

   My Esotericposted 7 months ago

   More on Telegram's CEO arrest:
   
   "Prosecutors alleged in a press release that Telegram enabled organized crime and refused to cooperate with authorities. Pavel Durov, the CEO and co-founder of the news and messaging app Telegram, has been charged in France with enabling various forms of criminality in the app, French prosecutors said Wednesday"
   
   https://www.google.com/search?q=telegra … s-wiz-serp

   replyreport
7. 68

   IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

   This is not about freedom of speech, but since it is about a social media platform...
   
   Didnt know where else to post it, sorry.
   
   Influencer amasses thousands of Trump supporters on X. But she's not real
   
   European influencers have become the face of fake MAGA accounts against their will.
   
   https://youtu.be/m1QkXtawyao?si=_M3FJo2NCsmd-Pxe

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I had to listen to one part twice to make sure I heard her correctly.
      
      They identified "nearly" 60... 6... 0... Sixty fake Trump supporting accounts.
      
      Wow... that's big news, some gung-ho Trump supporter sitting in a closet somewhere making fake accounts? 
      
      I bet you could find 60... 6... 0... or more fake accounts supporting Harris as well, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few fake accounts they couldn't find as well.  FBI and other agencies have far better security measures to keep from being detected by CNN snoops.

      replyreport
   2. 89

      My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I think it fits here.  Thanks.

      replyreport
8. 89

   My Esotericposted 7 months ago

   Now Brazil is getting on the act by threatening to ban Musk and X if they disobey the court's orders.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/tech/bra … index.html

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      There is certainly insufficient information to make a definitive call, but my gut tells me "Good for Musk!"  It very much sounds like this Brazilian judge is demanding that people not hear what the government does not want them to hear, and Musk is saying "No, thanks - I'll just move on". 
      
      If I've read it right, and that is indeed the response, I fully support it.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         I also followed a few links on this story and came to the same conclusion.
         
         If I'm not mixing stories, the part about the Brazilian Court demanding that X couldn't even let the censored folks know they were being censored was enough for me to support Musk's responses.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            It never ceases to amaze me how people can ignore/not see/pretend doesn't happen this kind of thing, even as they promote censorship.  Of things they want censored, of course - others are not to be given the choice of what should be censored.

            replyreport
         2. 89

            My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I didn't see any other links and all I saw about "in secret" was something Musk posted on X.  Given the source, I would need corroboration that Musk is telling the truth.  I also didn't see where it said they couldn't let the censored folks know.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               The Devil on my shoulder had a quick reply, but . . .
               
               The 'links' reference was from casually following the Brazil v. Musk controversy since it started a while back, relative to the Court ordering X to censor specific political opposition voices. At least one of those was a sitting member of their parliament.
               
               That was the first shot. Musk was threatened with big fines if he didn't censor the accounts and with a legal restriction that he could not notify the censored accounts. Musk then spoke to removing all X personnel because the order implied X employees could be arrested.
               
               Now the Court is saying X must have a physical representative in Brazil. Sounds like they need a hostage.
               
               If you're interested, enough, backtrack to the period of Brazil's most recent elections. I think that's the timeline leading to the most recent Court order/threat. But I'm going from memory . . .
               
               This most recent issue doesn't seem to be specifically linked to the original censorship fight but is simply an escalation of the battle.
               
               The Brazilian Court has also blocked any financial transactions with Starlink. Folks can't pay their bills. Musk says he will provide the service free while things are worked out. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  You made me look further. This is what I found.
                  
                  STARLINK: Brazilian law requires all internet companies to have a legal representative in the country who can receive judicial orders and otherwise be legally responsible for the business. -  The decision to freeze Starlink's bank accounts also stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines that X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents. Local newspaper Folha has reported the fines total at least 20 million reais ($3.6 million), but Reuters was not able to confirm the amount. - Seems legit to me.
                  
                  I see Musk made the claim about the arrest.  I don't believe anything Muck says without corporation.
                  
                  This is the most specific I could find on what the offending posts were so far:
                  Musk will be investigated for alleged intentional criminal instrumentalization of X as part of an investigation into a network of people known as digital militias who allegedly spread defamatory fake news and threats against Supreme Court justices, according to the text of the decision. The new investigation will look into whether Musk engaged in obstruction, criminal organization and incitement.
                  
                  “The flagrant conduct of obstruction of Brazilian justice, incitement of crime, the public threat of disobedience of court orders and future lack of cooperation from the platform are facts that disrespect the sovereignty of Brazil,” de Moraes wrote Sunday.
                  
                  Seems like the judge may have a case. 
                  
                  The Defamation depends, I guess, on how dangerous it was.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                     Yep, you nailed the Brazilian government's explanations. And you seem satisfied with them. Is that because you don't trust Musk?
                     
                     The claims of 'secret orders' and 'arrest' didn't initially come directly from Musk, they came from the legal beagles of X's Global Government Affairs office. Those claims were also verified in/by a U.S. Congressional committee looking into this issue. (AP did a good story on this aspect)
                     
                     As a side note, the highlighting and underlining aren't necessary, but it is cute, bless your heart.  ;-)
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                        I don't know, does the gov't agree with what the independent judicial arm is saying?  I haven't seen where the gov't is or is not. I don't consider our Judicial system as a representative of Congress or the President, which together in my view, constitute the government.
                        
                        All I know is Musk is the one making the claims and he has as much veracity as Trump - meaning none.
                        
                        It may not be necessary for you, but others tend to skip over the important parts.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                           Maybe it's not a matter of skipping, but one of seeing the important parts differently. Which has to lead to arguments about those "important parts." No need for that. We should wait for more details. I think Musk has said he is going to release/publish all of the documents. We can argue about his credibility then.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 72

                              Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                              "we should wait for more details"
                              
                              Really... you think that will matter?
                              
                              

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 GA Andersonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                                 Sure it will. MyEsoteric is big on connecting dots, and the details will give us some to connect. I think they will end up vindicating Musk.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 89

                                    My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                                    Not sure about the vindication part, but the rest is certainly true.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 72

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                     International tyranny is right around the corner...
                     
                     Funnily enough, it will be people living in Western nations in a couple of decades that will be envious of the freedoms found in places like Russia, if things continue down this path.

                     replyreport
      2. 89

         My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         I suppose it would depend on what sorts of disinformation it was and was it dangerous to humans?
         
         But, if Musk is in violation of Brazilian laws, then he needs to pay the consequences.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            And IF is was disinformation or just something government didn't want contradicting their lie.
            
            We've certainly seen that happen here, and if it can do that it can do it in Brazil. 
            
            Apparently he is no longer in violation, for he left before he had to take action in banning posts.  As I read the link, anyway.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               They need the ability to clamp down on information.
               
               Look at the problems they are having convincing people (voters) of the 'truth' in regards to Gaza, Ukraine, etc.  hard to sell the message when the video evidence people collect with their phones and drones is telling another story.
               
               And look... this is the first title I saw today when clicking on YouTube:
               
               Russia Warns WW3 Coming As Ukraine Invades Russia, BRICS Convenes 126 Nations TO DROP US Dollar
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMIVFu5Ce9o
               
               That's not the type of information our government wants being spread around or debated.  It should be the job of people like Rachel Maddow to explain what is really going on to us... so that we get the 'right' information.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Who is "they" regarding Gaza, etc.?
                  
                  So, are you saying the YouTube report isn't the "right" information?

                  replyreport
               2. 77

                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, that was the point.  I don't suppose we'll ever know just what Musk was supposed to ban, but I really doubt it was actually "misinformation".  Far more likely either something Brazil didn't want known or, at best, something Brazil had a differing opinion on.

                  replyreport
            2. 89

               My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               How do you know the gov't is lying?  What did they lie about? 
               
               He "left" as in him personally leaving the country or firing his staff in Brazil out of spite?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  He "left" as in laying off his staff so the government could not (or at least would not) take out their ire on them.  Why do you say out of spite?
                  
                  Governments always lie - something you should take to heart and understand.

                  replyreport
9. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 months ago

   Esoteric: "So, are you saying the YouTube report isn't the "right" information?" As you know, this is an unconfirmable blogger, Glad to see anyone on this site questioning his information.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Its not whether it should be questioned... all information of note should be verified with other sources.
      
      Its whether the government should be allowed to silence his voice, his ability to spread his opinions on what is going on.
      
      Where is the line crossed between 'misinformation' and government overreach and silencing those voices that step forth with evidence of wrongdoing by government entities and individuals?
      
      Why is everything considered a crime by Clinton swept under a rug or ignored, while everything Trump says and does is a crime needing to be prosecuted?
      
      Is Trump a dirtbag?
      
      Why?
      
      Why is it OK that Clinton or Biden or who-ever is accused of doing some of the same things, or worse, but all of that is nonsense or dismissed by the FBI/DOJ?
      
      Why is it practically considered a crime in America to show support of Trump?
      
      Is it because those people do not support the Party in charge?
      
      Its one thing when Trump is a dirtbag... its another when they try to sell him as a traitor and Russian conspirator that is trying to destroy the nation while at the same time they try to sell him as a dictator that is the next Hitler who will bring back slavery and who will start WWIII (which they started almost as soon as they got him out of office).
      
      ???
      
      If you are loyal to a Party I guess it all makes sense.

      replyreport