So the X accounts belonged to legitimate political opponents, they weren’t spreading disinformation?
I don’t want the government deciding who is or is not a “legitimate political opponent”. That double-edged-sword swings both ways and cuts very easily.
I think there are a few simple criteria to discriminate between legitimate opponents and others: spreading disinformation, bad faith, populism, the absence of a coherent political discourse, etc. If a government identifies illegitimate opponents based on these criteria, I’m ok with that.
So, what makes you think these accounts were legitimate political opponents?
According to Trump the MSM is “fake news” and thus spreading disinformation. We’ll shutdown CNN and MSNBC immediately and levy heavy fines on other stations that continue to spread dangerous content. It’s also a fact that he won the 2020 election and people claiming otherwise are also spreading dangerous misinformation that threatens our democracy - they should be silenced as well - to protect the nation.
You seem to believe that Trump saying “fake news!” is enough to consider that something is actually fake news. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking can verify this kind of affirmation and decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong. There’s a difference between a truth and a belief, but your argument seems to equate the two.
If a judge in Brazil says an account should be banned because it spreads disinformation, I can go and check what was posted and decide if it’s indeed disinformation. Now I might not have time to verify every affirmation like this so I tend to trust the judicial system of any country by default, unless I have reason to believe they can’t be trusted.
It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts. The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.
It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts.
Why would you think that I would? Have you not understood literally anything I’ve been saying?
The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.
What a remarkably simple view of the world you have. It’s like you think this is a sitcom plot. Do you want Musk to wear black and the judge to wear white so that you have an easier time recognizing who is the villain?
As I said in my original post - both sides can be wrong. One side being wrong doesn’t make the other side right.
Your argument that other people are engaging in black and white thinking when you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable is funny.
Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.
And you extrapolated that to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”.
If you really care - and I suspect you don’t because you’re just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and “be right” - I’m saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.
This is why I say the original case largely doesn’t matter - because my position doesn’t depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I’m arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.
You think this translates to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”???
I don’t want the government deciding who is or is not a “legitimate political opponent”. That double-edged-sword swings both ways and cuts very easily.
I think there are a few simple criteria to discriminate between legitimate opponents and others: spreading disinformation, bad faith, populism, the absence of a coherent political discourse, etc. If a government identifies illegitimate opponents based on these criteria, I’m ok with that.
So, what makes you think these accounts were legitimate political opponents?
Oh that’s easy. “Legitimate political opponents” are people who agree with your ideology, no matter what it is.
Neat - let’s go with that.
According to Trump the MSM is “fake news” and thus spreading disinformation. We’ll shutdown CNN and MSNBC immediately and levy heavy fines on other stations that continue to spread dangerous content. It’s also a fact that he won the 2020 election and people claiming otherwise are also spreading dangerous misinformation that threatens our democracy - they should be silenced as well - to protect the nation.
Good plan. This will go well.
You seem to believe that Trump saying “fake news!” is enough to consider that something is actually fake news. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking can verify this kind of affirmation and decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong. There’s a difference between a truth and a belief, but your argument seems to equate the two.
If a judge in Brazil says an account should be banned because it spreads disinformation, I can go and check what was posted and decide if it’s indeed disinformation. Now I might not have time to verify every affirmation like this so I tend to trust the judicial system of any country by default, unless I have reason to believe they can’t be trusted.
It’s funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts. The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.
Why would you think that I would? Have you not understood literally anything I’ve been saying?
What a remarkably simple view of the world you have. It’s like you think this is a sitcom plot. Do you want Musk to wear black and the judge to wear white so that you have an easier time recognizing who is the villain?
As I said in my original post - both sides can be wrong. One side being wrong doesn’t make the other side right.
Your argument that other people are engaging in black and white thinking when you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable is funny.
Explain how that’s my position. Please use references to support your argument.
Because that’s not my position. Nor have I stated it as my position. I recommend searching for the word “risk” when reading my prior comments.
EDIT: Oh - sorry… I guess I’m just off-topic in here. ELON BAD LOL
Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.
And you extrapolated that to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”.
If you really care - and I suspect you don’t because you’re just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and “be right” - I’m saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.
This is why I say the original case largely doesn’t matter - because my position doesn’t depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I’m arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.
You think this translates to “the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable”???
Cool story, bro.