Monomate

Twitter 1.0 outright banned right-leaning users. Silencing dissenting voices from online political discourse isn't considered "gaming the system"?

Does anyone remember when Twitter 1.0 censored stories about the Hunter Biden Laptop? On my book, that's manipulation.

X has been accused of manipulating its systems to give far-right posts and politicians greater visibility over other political groups.

Before Elon bought Twitter, the system did the exact same thing, but with left-leaning posts. Back then, the French prosecutors didn't seem to care. Now that the political tide is changing, they suddenly care?

If not for this, they'd certainly impose the block with another excuse. They just don't like Elon.

The old system of using fact-checking agencies was biased, and the content they deemed false had its reach negatively impacted. They were literally the arbiters of truth, and their actions silenced their political opponents' voices. The new system of Community Notes is superior because it requires approval from people with diverse political alignments to show a fact-check to everyone.

It's easy to be bold when the US president is weak. I don't think they'd ban X if Trump was president at the time.

As long as it keeps censoring its citizens, everthing fine! 🙄

When Zuckerberg mentioned 'secret courts in South America that order content removal without publicly disclosing it,' everyone in Brazil immediately knew he was referring to our Supreme Court. The Court has been working in tandem with the federal administration to suppress laws approved by Congress, including a 2013 law that implemented a notice-and-takedown system similar to the DMCA. Under this system, internet content providers are only held responsible if they fail to remove content after receiving a specific court order.

The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional, while the federal government simply parrots the same fallacious arguments made by the judges. Every article I've read on this subject fails to identify which part of our Constitution the system supposedly violates, and I've personally searched for it without success. I suspect the Court is determined to stifle free speech in Brazil and will come up with an excuse for the law's unconstitutionality later—likely something vague, like 'violation of human dignity.' Supreme Court judges often use this phrase liberally in their televised oral arguments.

The federal government and the Supreme Court claim to be protecting democracy, yet they seem unconcerned with preserving one of its core tenets: the separation of powers."

Al Jazeera, a news network banned in both Israel and Saudi Arabia for alleged biased reporting, had one of its reporters identified as a Hamas militant during the early stages of the war. Seems legit?