← Back to context

Comment by matheusmoreira

10 days ago

> 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.

7 comments

matheusmoreira

Reply
PaulDavisThe1st  10 days ago

> 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.

ImPostingOnHN  10 days ago

>> 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...

  • matheusmoreira  10 days ago

    > I'm appealing to the evidence, which also happens to be what the authorities say.

    I don't think I'm expressing myself properly.

    I'm way past the point of caring about evidence and fairness.

    Lula's been on a electoral crimes spree since he lost the first round of the presidential election earlier this month. He's doing the exact same things Bolsonaro did in 2022, only with complete impunity. Bolsonaro was relentlessly censored and fined for doing the exact same things Lula is doing now. Where the hell are these "judges" now?

    Evidence? Nobody is disputing the evidence. The point is none of this matters because the judiciary itself is corrupt and cannot be trusted. The entire institution is too far gone.

    That's the point I made in my original reply. Their "findings" are tainted and irrelevant, regardless of evidence.

    I'll start caring about this evidence when these "judges" start applying their own precedents to the left wing as a whole and to Lula personally. Not one second before.

    And everybody knows they won't actually do it, which is why we voted in senators to impeach them.

    > Was that before or after

    Obviously, political censorship during the election could only have taken place before the election. The court's profoundly destabilizing actions led directly to January 8th.

    However, it actually started years before those events. The supreme court created the "fake news" inquisition in 2019. They are literally the victims, investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners in a perpetual trial of wildcard crimes against themselves with a jurisdiction covering the entire Brazilian territory. This inquisition is active to this day, and they used it to essentially usurp all power.

    I don't really want to hear about any "putsch" until the day I see those "judges" in prison. My position is Brazil ceased to be a democracy the second these unelected judges started that inquisition, and it is pointless to even discuss elections until the entire institution is abolished. I don't care how it's done, so long as it gets done.