Comment by nomilk
2 months ago
Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted).
I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election).
Love or hate X, it deserves a massive hat tilt for its transparency here.
> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election).
I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting.
But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That is the purpose of his action. Musk does the same with regards to other democracies, such as AfD in Germany.
They’re not propagandists, they’re the official accounts of candidates in the election. I don’t see any problem with this as long as it’s applied to all candidates equally.
Your reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored.
I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the public knowing which accounts are limited and why.
I think people misunderstand what democracy is. To many people they think democracy is a resistance against, ultimately, the Nazis again. The West is structured this way. Post WWII we had a quiet revolution around this. It seems so ingrained people don't even think about it.
To many people, they believe there is a constant and persistent threat of Nazis and that it is the duty of enlightened government officials to continuously stage interventions to stop them. They think people are the problem so it is good to be totalitarian. It is kind of a type of paranoia it's just widely accepted as fact and it's a part of Western institutional ethos.
Well Musk has interfered in elections and riots before so it’s definitely a good idea to hold him under extremely close scrutiny. Being the world’s richest person and one of the most powerful influencers comes with responsibility, a responsibility that Musk has shown to be lacking.
8 replies →
These laws don't "protect democracy," even the most charitable interpretation of them is that they protect liberal values against democracy. They're inherently counter-majoritarian. Democracy doesn't mean liberalism. E.g. If Iran's ayatollah was elected by free and fair elections, but otherwise the country's laws and policies were the same, that would still be democracy.
They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea".
They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime.
It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional.
Said differently, arguments about such decisions should revolve around whether the law says what the courts say it does or whether it was applied correctly—not whether the law should exist.
To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.
I'm not sure what you mean, so it's hard to agree someone would have laughed at it.
It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate.
This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.
> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist
The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.
Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.
1 reply →
These are specifically the accounts of every registered candidate in the election (regardless of party affiliation).
if anything, I would completely unsubscribe from US-controlled social platform before the election anywhere outside US
Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Anyone in my country who is caught funded with US money may as well hang themselves they are electorally dead as a dodo.
This to be fair is why the CIA had to move suitcases with money instead of bragging about it on Fox News...
> Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism.
Ironic, isn't it?
antidote to US propaganda is anti-US propaganda :)
nationalism doesn't oppose US if US has bought all the nationalist movement (like f.e. in Ukraine circa 2014) - you get all the minuses of totalitarianism without all the bonuses of independence from US
> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election).
I wonder how many normal people actually follow political accounts like this. I follow my local government because they sometimes tweet emergency info but I don’t follow candidates at all. I don’t follow political influencers either. It’s far too noisy.
Transparency for something that was well known, reported on and legally documented?