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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
Removed by mod
What don’t say gay bill in Brazil are you talking about?
Removed by mod
This thread is specifically about Brazil. Did you not read the meme?
Removed by mod
As you can see the topics you tried to bring up nobody is agreeing with you. Because it doesn’t make sense to bring them up in this post.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Cool story, bro.
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.