Thread

1. abroszka33 · 1790500847 · focus · HN ↗

   I hope Lula wins and they will ban Facebook for good after the elections. This is an attack on Brazil’s sovereignty.

   1. tryauuum · 1790501518 · focus · HN ↗

      nothing good usually comes out of governments censoring internet

      1. ben_w · 1790502510 · focus · HN ↗

         In this case, the unelected leadership of Facebook is apparently censoring the free speech of a political candidate.

         I don't really know anything about Lula (I wouldn't have known this was Brazil if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, I only know from the Wikipedia page 30 seconds ago that their full name is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and "Lula" is a nickname), so I can't say if they're "fine" or "evil", but one does not simply get to disregard the implications of censorship (of anyone, let alone a political party) when it happens to be done by a private corporation.

         Especially when it's a foreign private corporation that's already deeply suspicious for political interference in multiple nations, as Meta is.

         1. bakugo · 1790504733 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. ModernMech · 1790505301 · focus · HN ↗

               You’re conflating the first amendment with free speech generally. They are different (related) concepts. The person you’re replying to did not appeal to the first amendment.

               1. bakugo · 1790506015 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm not conflating anything, I'm simply repeating what I was told hundreds of times in the past by others in their defense of social media censorship, such as when Twitter banned Trump. So, is it different now?

                  1. ModernMech · 1790506324 · focus · HN ↗

                     No, it’s not different now because you’re conflating two different things. One is the first amendment cited in Twitter case. The other is free speech cited here.

                     Did Twitter violate the principles of free speech by shutting Trump down? Well he was using his speech to foment an insurrection and caused a mob to sack the Capitol so yes, Twitter, within the bounds of the first amendment, for an eminently justifiable reason (to preserve democracy), attacked Trump’s speech, which is against free speech, yet preserves free speech, because the alternative was allowing insurrection to continue. The first amendment cannot hold under a dictatorship, as we are seeing right now as all press are (were? Are they complying with the order?) illegally banned from the White House.

                     It’s not straightforward but it’s consistent.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.