>

I don't support whatever is going on down in Brazil, but American companies shouldn't be deciding what political views are right for Brazilians to express
Bit fucking late for that innit? >

yeah. That was my same thought. What the fuck, they let people use their platform for organizing and promoting a coup then only got around to removing that content, and evidence after it failed. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted type shit. >

He’s kind of busy saying Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to use tanks. >

So they should stop because billionaire paypal co-founder who knows nothing about tanks or warfare but managed to purchase successful companies said so. >

Uh oh, Musk gonna buy them out now >

Imagine messing up 2 coups and genocide >

Not to mention getting facists elected. >

They would have done it like the Fujimoristas in Peru, try to carry out a parliamentary coup so many times until the president loses patience and tries to dissolve the congress, and with him there are already 4 presidents that were vacated, if they don't call elections soon even their friends in the military will get bored from them >

Wow, Reuters are apparently pro insurrection as far as the US goes since they called it a demonstration in their article when it was a planned coup attempt.  Guess we know Reuters loyalty must be to Trump and Russia. >

The Russian favoratism has been a known thing for a while. >

Could you elaborate on your thoughts on why this is? >

Why did we let them make "Meta" a thing? We all know you are Facebook, every headline starts with "Facebook owner Meta" so we aren't going to forget you are Facebook...why not just call the company Facebook... >

To be fair, Instagram is also just as big and is owned by them. So it made sense from that point of view >

It's funny too because IG is still pretty huge.  Tho, that does seem to be waning now. >


"In advance of the election, we designated Brazil as a temporaryhigh-risk location and have been removing content calling for people totake up arms or forcibly invade Congress, the Presidential palace andother federal buildings," a Meta spokesman said.

The part I don't like about this is that we are supposed to trust Facebook as our moral police.  If they are to continue to exist we need transparency about what and how they decide and act in these situations.  Same for Twitter, and Reddit.   I think this is where Mastodon has a killer app.   You can choose to join the server with the most agreeable transparent moral policing policy. >

Which, even in a world where Mastodon successfully takes over from Twitter, won't matter because whoever runs the biggest server is going to be shady. Instead of shilling for an app the real answer to this concern is government regulation. You need to force the high road because businesses always take the low >

I don't support whatever is going on down in Brazil, but American companies shouldn't be deciding what political views are right for Brazilians to express >

tic...tic...BOOM.... Oh guys stop that bomb! >

And as always, after the fact. >

How is Twitter responding? >

It already happened. Leave it up so we can see who the fascists are! >

Way to close the gate AFTER the dog ran away >

Facebook might turn out to be one of the most opportunistic and terrible companies in the world.
Surprised it isn’t based in Switzerland. >

It's FB, certainly no one is surprised. >

I am disgusted with Meta and Facebook. They allow such harm then put in minimal protections right after the damage is done. I will not use Facebook. I won't even click on a Facebook link.
Seattle schools are suing Facebook and some other social media over the harm they do to children. I so hope they win and win enough to make these companies start caring about what they do to people. >

A wild Slowpoke suddenly appears! >

So to clarify meta's position:
It ok to support "Death to Khamenei" or "Death to Putin", but it is NOT ok to support violence against the Brazilian government.
Edit: Not sure why this got down voted. This is literally meta's stated position. >

It's fine to openly rail against dictators in that way, but against democratically elected governments it's obviously a massively different situation.
Both putin and khamenei don't have democratic legitimation. Compared to lula, who absolutely does. Apples and oranges. >

The situations are absolutely completely different, but that's the point I'm making.
Meta's position isn't that its not ok to advocate killing people.  
Their position is that it's not ok to advocate killing people with which we are ideologically aligned. >

No, their position is to accept the morality of whatever market they're making the most money from at the moment. None of their decisions are based on ethics, they're entirely based on market research and profit potential.
And in this case, I do think they decided right. Now, of course, decisions like that shouldn't be in the hand of corporations, but of democratically legitimized bodies. But that's a different discussion. >

That's some pretty heavy censorship >

/s? >

Bit fucking late for that innit? >

yeah. That was my same thought. What the fuck, they let people use their platform for organizing and promoting a coup then only got around to removing that content, and evidence after it failed. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted type shit. >

Again >

He’s kind of busy saying Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to use tanks. >

So they should stop because billionaire paypal co-founder who knows nothing about tanks or warfare but managed to purchase successful companies said so. >

Uh oh, Musk gonna buy them out now >

Imagine messing up 2 coups and genocide >

Not to mention getting facists elected. >

They would have done it like the Fujimoristas in Peru, try to carry out a parliamentary coup so many times until the president loses patience and tries to dissolve the congress, and with him there are already 4 presidents that were vacated, if they don't call elections soon even their friends in the military will get bored from them >

Wow, Reuters are apparently pro insurrection as far as the US goes since they called it a demonstration in their article when it was a planned coup attempt.  Guess we know Reuters loyalty must be to Trump and Russia. >

The Russian favoratism has been a known thing for a while. >

Could you elaborate on your thoughts on why this is? >

Why did we let them make "Meta" a thing? We all know you are Facebook, every headline starts with "Facebook owner Meta" so we aren't going to forget you are Facebook...why not just call the company Facebook... >

To be fair, Instagram is also just as big and is owned by them. So it made sense from that point of view >

It's funny too because IG is still pretty huge.  Tho, that does seem to be waning now. >


"In advance of the election, we designated Brazil as a temporaryhigh-risk location and have been removing content calling for people totake up arms or forcibly invade Congress, the Presidential palace andother federal buildings," a Meta spokesman said.

The part I don't like about this is that we are supposed to trust Facebook as our moral police.  If they are to continue to exist we need transparency about what and how they decide and act in these situations.  Same for Twitter, and Reddit.   I think this is where Mastodon has a killer app.   You can choose to join the server with the most agreeable transparent moral policing policy. >

Which, even in a world where Mastodon successfully takes over from Twitter, won't matter because whoever runs the biggest server is going to be shady. Instead of shilling for an app the real answer to this concern is government regulation. You need to force the high road because businesses always take the low >

Mastodon allows you to move servers.  If you don't like the server your on you can take your business elsewhere.  Try that with Twitter or Facebook.
If the server does a bad job moderating, you can move. >

I mean you can do that now. Hell you could always do that. Good luck getting your community to move though >

I don't support whatever is going on down in Brazil, but American companies shouldn't be deciding what political views are right for Brazilians to express >

And as always, after the fact. >

How is Twitter responding? >

It already happened. Leave it up so we can see who the fascists are! >

Way to close the gate AFTER the dog ran away >

Facebook might turn out to be one of the most opportunistic and terrible companies in the world.
Surprised it isn’t based in Switzerland. >

It's FB, certainly no one is surprised. >

I am disgusted with Meta and Facebook. They allow such harm then put in minimal protections right after the damage is done. I will not use Facebook. I won't even click on a Facebook link.
Seattle schools are suing Facebook and some other social media over the harm they do to children. I so hope they win and win enough to make these companies start caring about what they do to people. >

A wild Slowpoke suddenly appears! >

Coup attempt* >

So to clarify meta's position:
It ok to support "Death to Khamenei" or "Death to Putin", but it is NOT ok to support violence against the Brazilian government.
Edit: Not sure why this got down voted. This is literally meta's stated position. >

It's fine to openly rail against dictators in that way, but against democratically elected governments it's obviously a massively different situation.
Both putin and khamenei don't have democratic legitimation. Compared to lula, who absolutely does. Apples and oranges. >

The situations are absolutely completely different, but that's the point I'm making.
Meta's position isn't that its not ok to advocate killing people.  
Their position is that it's not ok to advocate killing people with which we are ideologically aligned. >

No, their position is to accept the morality of whatever market they're making the most money from at the moment. None of their decisions are based on ethics, they're entirely based on market research and profit potential.
And in this case, I do think they decided right. Now, of course, decisions like that shouldn't be in the hand of corporations, but of democratically legitimized bodies. But that's a different discussion. >

That's some pretty heavy censorship >

/s? >

Bit fucking late for that innit? >

yeah. That was my same thought. What the fuck, they let people use their platform for organizing and promoting a coup then only got around to removing that content, and evidence after it failed. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted type shit. >

Again >

He’s kind of busy saying Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to use tanks. >

So they should stop because billionaire paypal co-founder who knows nothing about tanks or warfare but managed to purchase successful companies said so. >

Uh oh, Musk gonna buy them out now >

Imagine messing up 2 coups and genocide >

Not to mention getting facists elected. >

They would have done it like the Fujimoristas in Peru, try to carry out a parliamentary coup so many times until the president loses patience and tries to dissolve the congress, and with him there are already 4 presidents that were vacated, if they don't call elections soon even their friends in the military will get bored from them >

Wow, Reuters are apparently pro insurrection as far as the US goes since they called it a demonstration in their article when it was a planned coup attempt.  Guess we know Reuters loyalty must be to Trump and Russia. >

The Russian favoratism has been a known thing for a while. >

Could you elaborate on your thoughts on why this is? >

Why did we let them make "Meta" a thing? We all know you are Facebook, every headline starts with "Facebook owner Meta" so we aren't going to forget you are Facebook...why not just call the company Facebook... >

To be fair, Instagram is also just as big and is owned by them. So it made sense from that point of view >

It's funny too because IG is still pretty huge.  Tho, that does seem to be waning now. >


"In advance of the election, we designated Brazil as a temporaryhigh-risk location and have been removing content calling for people totake up arms or forcibly invade Congress, the Presidential palace andother federal buildings," a Meta spokesman said.

The part I don't like about this is that we are supposed to trust Facebook as our moral police.  If they are to continue to exist we need transparency about what and how they decide and act in these situations.  Same for Twitter, and Reddit.   I think this is where Mastodon has a killer app.   You can choose to join the server with the most agreeable transparent moral policing policy. >

Which, even in a world where Mastodon successfully takes over from Twitter, won't matter because whoever runs the biggest server is going to be shady. Instead of shilling for an app the real answer to this concern is government regulation. You need to force the high road because businesses always take the low >

Mastodon allows you to move servers.  If you don't like the server your on you can take your business elsewhere.  Try that with Twitter or Facebook.
If the server does a bad job moderating, you can move. >

I mean you can do that now. Hell you could always do that. Good luck getting your community to move though