Thread

Meta Blocks President Lula's Facebook Page, Campaign Ads 2 Weeks from Election

471 points · 303 comments · rbanffy

ocd · 1790503961 · focus · HN ↗
He said the thing that Canada, Greenland, Cuba, and various other countries are worried about, but is either publicly ignored in the US or dismissed as "trolling" by the president.
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/25/lula-says-trump-wants-to-colonise-and-capture-brazils-resources-by-meddling-in-election" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/25/lula-says-trum...
1. wongarsu · 1790504639 · focus · HN ↗
  And Meta (or the US government) seems determined to prove him right
  1. Insanity · 1790512036 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta == US gov. It’s another tool in their toolbox. You shouldn’t trust US tech any more than Chinese tech. If anything, probably should trust it less than Chinese tech.
    avaer · 1790515786 · focus · HN ↗
    Interesting that people trust foreign tech/government over their own to represent their interests. Not saying you're wrong.
    wongarsu · 1790516294 · focus · HN ↗
    For Brazilians and about half of HN readers Meta and Chinese companies are both foreign tech
    expedition32 · 1790534244 · focus · HN ↗
    The CCP doesn't worship Jesus meanwhile we know what hell on earth 1000 years of Christianity was.
    [deleted] · 1790564849 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    sgc · 1790517181 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a two-edged sword. Compared to other governments your own government when good is the best to promote your good. But when bad, it is by far the worst abuser.
    alistairSH · 1790517299 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not so much a matter of thinking one is "better" (for whatever definition of "better") - it's that the Chinese tech and Chinese government are so obviously coupled at the hip while American tech continues to claim independence (all the while paying billions in bribes directly to Trump's family and vanity projects).
    bryanlarsen · 1790519678 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't trust the Chinese government but i do trust that they're disinterested in me and don't have much agency over me. My own government is more trust worthy, but have interest and agency in me, so it could be said I trust the Chinese government more.
    pmarreck · 1790520097 · focus · HN ↗
    The frenemy of my frenemy is my... frenemy?
    [deleted] · 1790532187 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    Insanity · 1790541877 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is something many people tend to miss. The Chinese might spy on you, or steal your data when you use their devices. But for the _majority_ of people living the west, the odds of that actually being used against them are small.
    The US government is much more likely to act against their interest than the Chinese.
    customguy · 1790588854 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody can "miss" this, it's brought up whenever the letters C, C or P are mentioned.
    I just remember that Mariott employee got fired for liking a tweet thanking the chain for having Tibet in a dropdown menu.
    <a href="https://onemileatatime.com/marriott-fired-employee-for-liking-tweet/" rel="nofollow">https://onemileatatime.com/marriott-fired-employee-for-likin...
    > “This job was all I had,” Jones also said. “I’m at the age now where I don’t have many opportunities.”
    "they might spy on you and take your data but not use it against you", oh that's alright then. Of course, unless you show kindness to those they torture and disappear. Or don't even, but do something the CCP construes as such. So what you're really saying is that you can reasonably expect to never be tempted to show such kindness. That I hear such talk in Western circles by Western supposed peers I already consider a great harm the CCP has done to me.
    Totalitarian revisionism, by definition, seeks control of the whole planet, because it must. It can allow other totalitarian spheres if influence, but no non-totalitarian ones, where people are free to experiment and investigate, collect evidence etc. It's like bacteria agree about hating direct sunlight, but being agnostic about the color of the material that blocks it.
    montagg · 1790517606 · focus · HN ↗
    Comparing the two like this is interesting but there are fundamental differences. The US today could not delete tech companies, or the people who run them, the way China can its industries—and, crucially, the people who run them. The US’s version is personalist and would not survive even changing to another person other than Trump, not even going as far a a political party shift, which is possible in America.
    gaigalas · 1790518876 · focus · HN ↗
    It currently can't, but the current administration wants that power so desperately.
    rbanffy · 1790520676 · focus · HN ↗
    I am sure the plan is to make J D Vance president with all these powers and perhaps more, so he can rule for the project 2025 crowd.
    panarky · 1790518724 · focus · HN ↗
    20 million people wearing facial recognition glasses in public, always-on, networked and geolocated, with a Muse agent monitoring the feed, would 1000x the domestic surveillance capacity of current Flock, Ring, Tesla and CCTV cams.
    The Fermi probability that you'll be ingested and inferenced by this network on any given day is incredibly high, even if you never buy a Meta product and never create an Instagram account.
    It's hideously dystopian and you cannot opt out.
    Maybe that's why the Muse avatar is a cute and cuddly Teletubby.
    econ · 1790534056 · focus · HN ↗
    I suspect they are working on the edge where limited data makes the subjects more interesting.
    ashwagary · 1790520444 · focus · HN ↗
    Correction: Meta == Israel + US gov.
2. mc32 · 1790505267 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. bakugo · 1790505617 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't understand, it's different. Back then, it was the bad guys being censored, so it was a good thing. Now it's the good guys being censored, so it's a bad thing.
    When the left censors their political opponents, they're "protecting democracy". When the right does the same, they're "threatening democracy". Those are the rules.
    mc32 · 1790506368 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed it seems that they only have problems with censorship when their team gets censored but they secretly enjoy their opposition getting censored. As it is the Lula admin mandated that X suppress the speech of about 600 opposition candidates.
    <a href="https://derechadiario.com.ar/us/argentina/x-revelo-source-code-exposed-filters-censorship-taxes-court-order-lula" rel="nofollow">https://derechadiario.com.ar/us/argentina/x-revelo-source-co...
    noelwelsh · 1790507234 · focus · HN ↗
    Pointing out an issue with one action doesn't mean approval of other actions. You don't have to invent an conspiracy.
    Levitz · 1790508384 · focus · HN ↗
    Pointing out that these criticisms seem completely unprincipled is not inventing a conspiracy.
    shevy-java · 1790508580 · focus · HN ↗
    Which conspiracy exactly?
    It is clear that we do not see all communication. Governments become increasingly deceitful and secretive - the US government is the best example, but the same applies to other governments (just look at the garbage produced by the russian government, they almost outperform the current US administration with total crap, like what Lavrov recently babbled about - what pile of nonsense). And companies - they are alo secretive. So which conspiracy exactly is meant here? It's not that I disagree with your prior statement, but I want to know which conspiracy you assume to be here to exist, or to NOT exist. Because what you wrote is very unspecific - you insinuate that there may not be a conspiracy. How do you conclude that?
    I concur with Levitz's statement too, with regards to conspiracy or "inventing" one - so, which specific conspiracy was meant?
    cramer4next · 1790509369 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it does when you don't see the same level of rage when its exactly the same thing. Its called polorization. If you accepted it the first time you've all ready approved it universally.
    urbsgpw · 1790511538 · focus · HN ↗
    I think if you are a partisan you're always going to find differences in the two scenarios which are meaningful enough to explain to yourself and others why your outrage (or lack of it) is warranted.
    And here's the thing, I'm sure there are meaningful differences. But then again there's also loads of similarities. A similar thing on the geopolitical stage is the status of Kosovo. The moment it was accepted as a separate entity you opened a floodgate. President of Croatia had a very nice clip about it a while ago, basically accepting both things to be true at once: Kosovo is a state that we need to accept but we also need to admit it was illegally taken from Serbia. This sort of duality (what Nader called being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, although for a completely different situation, I forget what the topic was) is very rare.
    On HN i made the mistake of defending, for lack of a better word, a certain tech oligarch who shall not be named where I eventually made a similar point to yours and got downvoted to oblivion.
    I could understand the framing being: all censorship is bad (even though I suppose this view would be called childish by some). I could also understand the framing that there is too much concentration of power in the hands of these corporations (and then the inevitable cries to break them up or nationalize them). But, for example, just pointing out that nobody was against these same practices when they were aimed at the other end of the political spectrum (SF billionaires were the darlings of the Democrat and not Republican establishment) causes such outrage from what I would guess are generally well meaning and intelligent people, that it boggles the mind.
    It really seems to be something in our species that turns us into crusaders for certain topics. I can very well imagine that this same biological(?) impulses, where you are incredibly convinced in your own morality, must have led to the spread of early christianity (and then to the same or even larger degree, Islam). And it has to come from a place of conviction because otherwise u cant explain the zeal. And anybody who isn't as convinced (maybe partially agreeing) gets dealt with viciously. I'm making Tom Hollands point (in a very erratic manner), that what we consider modern universalism (aka wokeness) is a natural continuation of christianity. I would just go further and say that I think there is something in us all (to varying degrees) that we want to spread a certain gospel of what it is to be a moral person. And if someone disagrees they are not moral.
    owebmaster · 1790508568 · focus · HN ↗
    [flagged]
    icantevenhold · 1790510124 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure why you are being downvoted; It’s definitely not a trustworthy or neutral source: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Derecha_Diario" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Derecha_Diario
    owebmaster · 1790510389 · focus · HN ↗
    Downvoted by the bots and people paid to spread lies
    mc32 · 1790514401 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/home-mixer/filters/brazil_2026_election_filter.rs" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm/blob/main/home-mixer/...
    owebmaster · 1790522970 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-09-13/he-was-called-magas-man-in-latin-america-now-hes-charged-with-murder" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-09-13/he-was...
  2. crisdias · 1790511084 · focus · HN ↗
    There is actually a very popular meme in Brazil for what you just did, where a character appears out of nowhere to ask, "What about Lula?" — meaning that if one can find any act (or accusation) of malice from Lula or his party, anything bad the other side does is justifiable and Lula (or his supporters) can't complain.
    <a href="https://tenor.com/pt-BR/view/e-o-pt-e-o-lula-pt-lula-gif-17409388338601416592" rel="nofollow">https://tenor.com/pt-BR/view/e-o-pt-e-o-lula-pt-lula-gif-174...
    yostrovs · 1790513726 · focus · HN ↗
    It's called "whataboutism" in general. The word is used to easily wave away criticism of the other side of the argument without actually addressing it.
    vintermann · 1790514171 · focus · HN ↗
    Complaining about whataboutism can be its own kind of whataboutism. I wish people I politically sympathize with would stop giving their enemies good points.
    iamnothere · 1790515042 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it’s not whataboutism if it’s part of a discussion about bipartisan corruption, for instance. Or when discussing the causes of conflict between two countries. It’s a problem when it is used without context to deflect from the bad actions of one actor or one “side”.
    brookst · 1790514176 · focus · HN ↗
    “But her emails!” / “but her laugh” / “but he wore a tan suit” for instance. All used to excuse high crimes and thefts of billions of dollars.
  3. KingOfCoders · 1790511704 · focus · HN ↗
    I think there is a difference of a country governing who can say what in that country vs. a foreign company. I don't care if you call it censorship or whatever, it's foreign companies meddling in political affairs.
    US companies can meddle as much as they want in US affairs, I don't care. But not in the country I'm in.
  4. Arodex · 1790511983 · focus · HN ↗
    By "the government", you mean "courts"?. I understand you may be confused as Trump imagines the law bends to his will, and you never heard of separation of powers.
    Can you show us which court order Meta is following to ban Lula's page? Please.
3. AnimalMuppet · 1790512425 · focus · HN ↗
  That would require that Meta is carrying water for Trump. I don't think I see that as very likely.
  1. [deleted] · 1790513671 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. delecti · 1790514083 · focus · HN ↗
    "Likely" or not has nothing to do with it, it's well documented. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/mark-zuckerbergs-meta-donates-1-million-to-trumps-inaugural-fund-32a999c1" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/tech/mark-zuckerbergs-meta-donates-1-mil...
    dmix · 1790515575 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta restored Lula's FB account hours after it got flagged for content that as posted on their page. That is a pretty weak basis for a conspiracy theory.
    rbanffy · 1790516653 · focus · HN ↗
    Did they anticipate there would be large numbers of attempts to report the page and cause it to be automatically flagged and/or blocked?
    I am sure the American president is target for such efforts as well and provides ample material for rules violations.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790522031 · focus · HN ↗
    As the source article covers, they’ve been facing a number of complaints from human rights organizations that they are being insufficiently censorious regarding the Brazilian election, failing to swiftly take down some things which ethical standards and Brazilian law require. So that presumably influenced their policy. A lot of people seem to have an idea that Facebook’s election policy should quickly block all the bad ads with no risk of blocking any good ones, and that’s just not possible.
    sprinkly-dust · 1790535750 · focus · HN ↗
    One paper that really hammers this point: Inherent Trade-Offs in Algorithmic Fairness [1]
    The example they focus on is different but the general principles and takeaways are very powerful and applicable to all classification problems including content flagging.
    [1]: <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3219617.3219634" rel="nofollow">https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3219617.3219634
    owebmaster · 1790543703 · focus · HN ↗
    Wake me up when the right wing guy in the corporations pockets is banned by mistake
    rbanffy · 1790597854 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there a betting market for that?
    specialist · 1790517332 · focus · HN ↗
    IIRC, profiles of public officials are (or should be) handled differently.
    JoshTriplett · 1790521402 · focus · HN ↗
    Only insofar as more careful review. Otherwise, no, they shouldn't. Exactly the same policies on content should be applied uniformly to everyone.
    lemmetellya · 1790523858 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree with both of you.
    They should be handled differently [than they are today]. They should not be handled differently [than any other persons]. Meta should be giving everyone careful review.
    parineum · 1790515606 · focus · HN ↗
    donating money to the president and their party is something nearly every national corporation does. Using their corporate power to do political favors is not. those are two very different things.
    thrance · 1790520325 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not a campaign donation, this is straight up a gift to show loyalty to the new guy, after he won the election. But that's not the only thing, for just one more example, look at Zuckerberg getting on Joe Rogan weeks after the election to praise "masculine energy", wearing a ridiculous haircut and necklace, just to pander to the Right.
    [deleted] · 1790564955 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. ArnoVW · 1790516740 · focus · HN ↗
    If the title of this article is not sufficiently eloquent, the photo should finish the job
    <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/tech-ceos-donald-trump-white-house/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/story/tech-ceos-donald-trump-white-hou...
  4. lemmetellya · 1790523758 · focus · HN ↗
    What universe have you been in for the past decade? Meta is hand in glove with authoritarian interests, including in the US.
  5. Denzel · 1790543402 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta hired Dina Powell McCormick into a position directly under Zuckerberg after the election and appointed Dana White to their board of directors. Is that enough water?
  6. qlte · 1790548047 · focus · HN ↗
    Zuckerberg started pandering to the Trump admin mere months after he took office, publicizing "evidence" consisting of a few emails from Biden admin officials as proof of widespread government manipulation of tech platforms that Trump rightly put a stop to in the name of free speech.
    At the time the story blew up on HN drawing lots of outrage from the self-styled free speech maximalists. Now, of course, there's comparative silence from that crowd after regular stories about the FCC routinely weaponizing licenses to enforce preferred speech, lawsuit threats against Wikipedia, coercion of universities to suppress specific political views, etc. But at the time it was a big thing and a political gift to the Trump admin's public image.
4. penguin_booze · 1790513718 · focus · HN ↗
  The same old cool-aid: the label on bottle reads "freedom". But if you look at the ingredients: greed, gluttony, looting, bullying, spread american culture, slavery, surveillance - the full nth-amendmend package. Dosages may vary.
5. betaby · 1790532398 · focus · HN ↗
  If those countries worried for real they would have built open platforms themselves. In reality they are making running any social platform next to impossible operate legaly.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.