• Wytch@lemmy.zipEnglish
    44·
    2 months ago

    I can’t imagine being able to travel the world at my leisure eating the finest foods mankind has to offer and saving millions of lives through charitable donations and yet wasting my life, money, and time picking losing fights with governments while defending indefensible shitbags on the internet.

    Must just be something about billionaires I don’t understand 🤷‍♂️

      • shuzukoEnglish
        72·
        2 months ago

        I could do it easy peasy

        It’s called supporting the arts. I’d just set up artist funds all over the country so that artists - visual artists, musical artists, theatrical artists, circus artists, writers, you name it - could learn, create, and share their work without struggling to get by.

        But then, I’m a human and not a capitalist lizard masquerading as human, so art actually means something to me.

        • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          The thought exercise says no charity donations. I guess spending part of your million a day on a suite of lawyers to argue that arts funding on that scale is not a “charitable donation” is a valid use of the money. But, that would cut into the charity funding eventually.

          • shuzukoEnglish
            12·
            2 months ago

            Ok, I did actually miss that line about no charitable donations.

            But I’m going to be annoying and argue that because of the gratification that funding artists would give me, it is actually a fully selfish endeavor and as such fulfills the requirements ;)

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    33·
    2 months ago

    So hitting him in his bank account is how to get him to do your bidding? So let’s impose some more embargos and demand his account be banned for lies.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      16·
      2 months ago

      Rocket Kiko is such a wimp he cares about a tiny amount like this, when he’s the richest child in the world.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      2·
      2 months ago

      I think his ego is at least as much of a factor. Even before he bought Twitter, it was well known that he was probably going to lose money, because the value was inflated. But his ego made him go through with it, and of course he’s lost a lot of money there.

      Similarly, when users are moving to other social media, I don’t think he’s looking at the associated price tag. After all, he knows how to increase advertising revenue on Twitter. All he needs to do is get rid of the neo-nazis and the racists, and some of his former large advertisers might come back. But he won’t do it because he doesn’t want to be pushed around, and he also probably likes the neo-nazis and the racists.

      There are many quiet ultra rich people who are mostly aiming at getting a lot of money and keeping it, and then there are vocal for rich people who want to show off their power along with their money. Our boy here is in the latter category.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      171·
      2 months ago

      Poking around I can’t find anything talking about the election being rigged at all, only older articles talking about Bolsanaro falsely claiming that the voting machines could be hacked and rigged.

      The accounts that were requested to be suspended seem to have all been in relation to their own version of Jan. 6 and were spreading conspiracy and lies about the election. That’s a pretty major national security risk, honestly, if they’re trying to incite people to respond against a fairly elected government with violence.

      —

      Free speech is all well and good but not everything that flaps out of someone’s gums is protected. Hate speech isn’t, defamation is a crime in most places, fraud is a real thing, etc. If these people are using their platform to heat the waters in an attempt to tear down a democratically elected government that’s no fucking bueno, my dude.

      X also has a history of banning left-leaning accounts just because. He’s perfectly happy to silence political opponents for the right.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          25·
          2 months ago

          Sorry, I live in a country where you can’t just say slurs and shit all over people based on their race or sexuality. And I don’t really know about Brazil, to be honest, but I sure don’t give a fuck about the laws in the U.S. here since we’re talking about Brazil.

          At some point you have to put your foot down and you’re just going to have to deal with that. Tolerance is not a paradox if you have two braincells to knock together and the country does not need to tolerate someone trying to incite further violence on the basis that they’re upset about the results of a fair election.

          Lula won by 1% of the vote, Putin “won” with 88.48% of the vote and if you so much as say his name in the red square people come by to pull you away. These things are not the same and if you can’t understand that nuance then no wonder you fall for that “slippery slope” nonsense.

            • Soup@lemmy.world
              15·
              2 months ago

              Yes, everything is a slippery slope. It’s an aggressive binary to make it easy to understand and when something doesn’t fit that binary it must mean that it’s just a deliberate step in that direction, right?

              There’s that incredibly popular saying that goes “the right to swing your fist ends at my nose” and that applies to speech as well. When you make life easy for yourself and just say everyone can start smashing noses because stopping them infringes on their right to do so the only people you empower are those who want to do harm. Especially when that issue becomes applied to more than just fists and now it’s rich people buying weapons while poor people still just have their two hands. In social media that’s rich and/or powerful people using money and influence to try to sway elections with lies and deceit.

              This shit is hard, and complicated, and very often requires trust in things that are scary to trust or tell us things that might make us face something we don’t want to face. I understand that, really I do, and I’m sorry. Shit like libertarianism and adjecent ideologies promise easy answers and they’ve never delivered.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 months ago

          Thats all nicely worded and such but this was disabling accounts on some random companies messaging apps, not throwing them in jail or barring them from journalism.

    • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      2 months ago

      So the X accounts belonged to legitimate political opponents, they weren’t spreading disinformation?

      I don’t know about the judicial system in Brazil but they don’t seem that corrupted…

        • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          2 months ago

          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?

            • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
              4·
              2 months ago

              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.

            • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              2 months ago

              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.