• @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    the government in this case is using its power to remove people from the public eye

    These aren’t people, they’re accounts. And the accounts in question appear to have been coordinating the attack on the Brazilian congressional office in 2023. This is comparable to, say, the traffic on Parlor shortly before the J6 riot in the US.

    Organized violence would not be tolerated as “free speech” in Brazil or the US. No government or civilian authority considers active insurrection a protected category of speech. These accounts were effectively coordinating a military coup. They weren’t just trash talking the new President and his party.

    Blocking traffic from an enemy military force is a military response to a rival military operation. And Musk’s refusal to shut the accounts down amounts to taking a side in a military campaign.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      416 days ago

      Is it though? Refusing to take a side isn’t the same as taking a side. You should never be obligated to remove content the government doesn’t like, you should merely be required to provide data about accounts to local authorities to assist in investigations. If someone is posting illegal content, they should be accountable to the law, but it should always be the host’s discretion whether to remove that content.

    • @flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 days ago

      Is it from a foreign country trying to take over? In which case that does change things, had assumed this was some kind of revolution from within the country