Comment by matheusmoreira
10 days ago
> obviously your opinions don't overrule Brasil's supreme court's findings
Their findings? You mean their purely political, pre-determined sentences that they justify after the fact with some reasonable sounding legalese slop? I'd take literally any random HN commenter's opinion over theirs any day.
Next year we're going to impeach a significant number of those "judges". I'm really looking forward to it.
Not to worry ... by providing any legalese slop to go with their rulings, they're ahead of more than half the SCOTUS decisions over the last two years!
Oh wait, we can't impeach US supreme court justices ... ah well, nevertheless.
It's becoming clear that judges are the weakest point of democracy. The potential for a juristocracy was always there...
> Oh wait, we can't impeach US supreme court justices
You actually can! I think it hasn't been common due to the precedent it would set.
> Their findings? You mean their purely political, pre-determined sentences that they justify after the fact with some reasonable sounding legalese slop?
You're repeated these claims, but they are not convincing with regards to this matter:
On the one hand, we have the entire court system of an entire country;
On the other hand, we have you. And Facebook.
Sorry, but you and Facebook are less trustworthy, less authoritative, and Facebook at least has shown themselves to be more partisan, too.
If this was actually an accident as you're claiming, then Facebook should be able to apologize, and explain exactly what happened, and what part of their "algorithm" caused it to disproportionately target mainstream left-wing politicians and political movements, and how they plan to fix it and make things right, and how people can verify that they have done so. Have they done any of that?
> On the other hand, we have you.
Appeals to authority are bad in general. Appealing to these particular authorities is just absolute nonsense.
I'd rather people actually think about what I am saying. Evaluate the logic of the arguments I post in good faith, and either accept the argument or refute it.
> If this was actually an accident as you're claiming
I have never claimed that. Not once.
Let's make it clear: I'm not denying that Meta engaged in "interference".
My point is I couldn't care less what Meta did or did not do. The truth is after what I witnessed in 2022 it doesn't matter what big tech does, they can never exceed the crimes of the supreme court itself.
In 2022 the supreme court engaged in a blatantly unconstitutional censorship and political persecution campaign against Bolsonaro and the Brazilian right wing. People have already perished in prison because of them.
Watching people fret over the Facebook accounts of Lula at this point is just black comedy.
Want to trust an authority? Then trust the authority of the Brazilian people. Trust democratically elected senate we just voted into power for the express purpose of ending the reign of these judge-god-kings. Their fall is highly anticipated.
Once that problem's been solved, then we can care about whether some social media company's algorithms are fair.
> Once that problem's been solved, then we can care about whether some social media company's algorithms are fair.
The dilemma comes in large part from whether or not you think some social media company's algorithms played a role in the senate you just voted into power. I suspect you do not (i.e. you see the senate result as a true, democratic expression of the will of the people of Brasil). Your view is not universally held, however.
1 reply →
>> On the other hand, we have you.
> Appeals to authority are bad in general.
I'm appealing to the evidence, which also happens to be what the authorities say. Given that you have neither evidence nor authority in this discussion about whether Facebook's actions were accidental, your claims remain unconvincing on either count.
> I have never claimed that. Not once.
> Let's make it clear: I'm not denying that Meta engaged in "interference".
You are right, I mistakenly confused you for the other poster I replied to, who started this thread by claiming Facebook's actions were all accidental. I'm sorry.
> In 2022 the supreme court engaged in a blatantly unconstitutional censorship and political persecution campaign against Bolsonaro and the Brazilian right wing.
Was that before or after Bolsonaro attempted to overthrow the government with a coup/putsch [0][1]? Most people are not free speech absolutists in all cases, and incitement to insurrection is a common and commonly accepted exception to free speech worldwide.
0 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Brazilian_co...
1 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...
4 replies →