Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks

Brazil's President Bans Social Networks From Removing Some Posts (nytimes.com) 82

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is temporarily banning social media companies from removing certain content, including his claims that the only way he'll lose next year's elections is if the vote is rigged -- one of the most significant steps by a democratically elected leader to control what can be said on the internet. From a report: The new social media rules, issued this week and effective immediately, appear to be the first time a national government has stopped internet companies from taking down content that violates their rules, according to internet law experts and officials at tech companies. And they come at a precarious moment for Brazil. Mr. Bolsonaro has used social media as a megaphone to build his political movement and make it to the president's office. Now, with polls showing he would lose the presidential elections if they were held today, he is using sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to try to undermine the legitimacy of the vote, following the playbook of his close ally, former President Donald J. Trump. On Tuesday, Mr. Bolsonaro repeated his claims about the election to thousands of supporters in two cities as part of nationwide demonstrations on Brazil's Independence Day.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brazil's President Bans Social Networks From Removing Some Posts More

Brazil's President Bans Social Networks From Removing Some Posts

Comments Filter:

  • Heh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @01:47PM (#61792677) Journal

    The Brazilians show Texas how it's done. Bravo!

    • What's with the vacuous FP Subjects? Should I look at the comment to see if it's as vacuous as the Subject?

      There must be a clause in the Constitution of Brazil saying "The president has the right to require your private company to act for the good of Brazil, as defined by president." Otherwise this entire story would be ridiculous.

      Bolsonaro don't need no stinkin' state media. He can just deputize your company for his Ministry of Truth!

      Joking aside, democracy appears to be in real trouble. But the part I fin

      • "What's with the vacuous FP Subjects? Should I look at the comment to see if it's as vacuous as the Subject?"

        Yer right, I should just start using "Phr0st p1st LOLZ !!!!"
        like back in 1999..

  • Just ban the bozo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @01:58PM (#61792715)

    And be done with it.

    • Now we will see how much worse government-compelled speech is than government censorship. And just maybe this will make it more obvious that preventing online discussion platforms from removing content amounts to government-compelled speech. This is so far removed from the ideals of the authors of the first amendment of the US constitution: it's not just the lack of free speech, it is the opposite of free speech - compelled speech.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Nobody that have visited Internet more than once would confuse an individual posting a tweet with TWTR the company making an announcement. As such, not allowing to selectively censor is the same thing as compelled speech argument is dead on arrival.
        • Well twitter paid to provide that info to the viewer, so seems like they're being compelled to spend that money to me. In a free country if they don't want to spend their own money to relay that message to a viewer, they don't have to. Given that twitter initially worked by sending SMS messages that they literally had to pay for that seems like a pretty terrible example.

      • This is so far removed from the ideals of the authors of the first amendment of the US constitution: it's not just the lack of free speech, it is the opposite of free speech - compelled speech

        This is Brazil, so I'm unsure why you would think they care about your constitution they have one of their own.
        The real story here is that Bolsonaro knows that when he loses the election he will be investigated for all the corruption, and might well end up in prison with his son.
        His problem is that he is so incompetent that even the military won't back him and provide the coup he needs, so he's trying to rally the people instead.
        In his favour is the fact he's a right-wing weirdo, so the CIA might well

    • Just ban the bozo And be done with it.

      Present to me a coherent argument as to why Twitter should be allowed by Brazilian government to meddle in elections in Brazil?

      • Because 'Murica has F16s and Nukes?
        Isnt that how it works?

      • They shouldn't. Hence they should stop Brazil politicians from abusing their platform.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by sinij ( 911942 )
          This is erroneous framing. Brazilian politicians abusing any platform is part of Brazilian politics. Even if you think Twitter doing the right thing, it is none of Twitter business (or broadly US business) how politics are run in Brazil. Unless you are trying to make a case that shitposting on Twitter is a heinous crime on the same level as genocide and we should have UN intervention, are you?

          • But it is Twitter's business who they want to do business with, I hope? No UN intervention necessary, it's strictly a matter of a company deciding with whom to do business.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )

        Present to me a coherent argument as to why Twitter should be allowed by Brazilian government to meddle in elections in Brazil?

        Twitter owns their service, so Twitter can do whatever the hell they want with the service that they own. You know, that whole "private property" thing.

  • We voted our troll out, time for (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @02:14PM (#61792785) Journal

    you to do the same

  • Two approaches to an information monopoly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @02:20PM (#61792821)
    1. Break up the monopoly. This is the approach favored in a democracy.

    2. Preserve the monopoly and seize control of it. Favored by supporters of dictatorship.

    The Texas state government and Jair Bolsonaro have self-identified in the latter camp.

    • 1. Break up the monopoly. This is the approach favored in a democracy.

      2. Preserve the monopoly and seize control of it. Favored by supporters of dictatorship.

      The Texas state government and Jair Bolsonaro have self-identified in the latter camp.

      How would you break up a Facebook or Twitter monopoly?

      • How would you break up a Facebook or Twitter monopoly?

        At a guess? Mandatory licensing. But obviously it's up to people who understand how such platforms work, and how the technology could best be severed from the corporate power that leverages it.

        No one can claim they haven't long ago realized all the ROI any sane person would call their due. And I'm all for that continuing on an "emeritus" (?) basis, with reward but not control.

        • How would you break up a Facebook or Twitter monopoly?

          At a guess? Mandatory licensing. But obviously it's up to people who understand how such platforms work, and how the technology could best be severed from the corporate power that leverages it.

          Mandatory licensing of what? The value of Facebook and Twitter isn't the technology, it's the network. You can't break up the network without destroying the actual thing that gives it value.

          No one can claim they haven't long ago realized all the ROI any sane person would call their due. And I'm all for that continuing on an "emeritus" (?) basis, with reward but not control.

          The thing about "capping" the ROI in some sense is that a lot of startups get funding based on the partial promise of the crazy ROI.

          As for control, again, just whom are you planning on giving that control? Because I don't see any real way to decentralize it.

          • Shhh!! didnt know know a bit of handwaving from a comfy chair solves all world problems?
            Pretty sure that makes you a racist, and possibly a Nazi.

          • You can't break up the network without destroying the actual thing that gives it value.

            AT&T made similar claims in the 1970s when the US government began pursuing its breakup, with equally nonexistent basis. "The network" is just infrastructure: It doesn't disappear because you divide control of it. All that disappears is their leverage, reintroducing competition.

            The thing about "capping" the ROI in some sense is that a lot of startups get funding based on the partial promise of the crazy ROI.

            I wasn't suggesting "capping" ROI, only denying illegitimate means of maintaining or expanding it beyond what actual competitive advantage produces. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws.

            As for control, again, just whom are you planning on giving that control? Because I don't see any real way to decentralize it.

            An unsustainable argument on its fa

      • Most famous is Instagram but there are others if you go looking at the company's Facebook bought. The problem any social media company has is that as the original user base ages young people don't want to be on the platform with their parents. Add to that how easy it is to start a social media Network and pretty much any of them are living on borrowed time if they're not constantly buying out their competitors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      1. Break up the monopoly. This is the approach favored in a democracy.

      Yeah, right, like how Microsoft was broken up, huh?

      Wake me up when Facebook, Twitter, or Google got broken up.

      The approach favored in the US against monopoly is to threaten antitrust action until enough protection money (aka campaign contributions) were paid, then it it business as usual.

      • The abusiveness of Microsoft's business practices, while significant, was limited to specific products and services.

        These giant platforms have far more comprehensive power, and the abuse of that power has real human consequences. Increases in violent hate crime, terrorism recruitment, organized harassment, propaganda of hostile foreign governments, and deaths from willful sabotage of public health information are strongly associated. All utilizing the leverage of the platform in ways that would be much
  • While I don't think unelected technocrats should have that much say in US elections [nypost.com], at least there is a case to be made that these are US corporations run by US citizens potentially (and destructively) exercising their freedom of speech. Such case does not exist for Twitter meddling in Brazilian elections.

  • Bolsonaro's son is the boss of fake news (Score:5, Informative)

    by viniciuscb ( 764480 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @03:08PM (#61792995)
    Bolsonaro's second son, Carlos, is suspect of being the boss of the "hate office" or "gabinete do ódio" (currently under investigation in the Brazilian high court). This "office" is the source of lots of fake news and disinformation, that is propagated through part of the brazilian population via Telegram and Whatsapp groups. Bolsonaro already told, in a public speech, that he owes his son the 2018 election victory. Part of my family is now living in a fantasy world, after years of being informed through these whatsapp groups.
  • The solution is obvious: flood social media with stories that put Bolsonaro in a bad light. It doesn't matter if they're true or not.

    "What's that? You want me to remove that slanderous story about you? I'm sorry. That would be illegal."

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close