this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
248 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39501 readers
1746 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Brazil criticized Meta's decision to end factchecking in the U.S., with Communication Minister Sidonio Palmeira calling it harmful to democracy due to unchecked misinformation.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg plans to replace factchecking with "community notes," sparking global concerns about misinformation.

Brazil's public prosecutor has demanded clarification within 30 days on whether these changes will extend to Brazil.

President Lula emphasized the dangers of disinformation and vowed to combat hate speech, recalling Brazil's strong stance on regulating social media, including past actions against Twitter/X for noncompliance.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 8 hours ago

Meta is a threat to democracy. It has too much power over communications and is almost entirely unregulated in that regard. The same applies to Xitter and Tiktok and could apply to any other social media that gets too big.

"Oh, it's user generated content, we just host it, we can't be held liable!" - True, but you also profit off it. You also don't properly act to contain bad actors and criminals (instagram is full of drug sellers and scammers) because they're profitable, they pay for ad space. They should, at the very least, be liable for any ads they host and require full info (KYC, know your client) on the person paying for that ad.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 2 points 8 hours ago

We know, that's the point. Zuck is latched onto the Orange Idiot's ass just like the rest of the billionaires & CEOs.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Getting rid of meta is good for democracy. Mario where you at ?

[–] Monomate@lemm.ee 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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."

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional

This piece explains more or less how the debacle really isn't about whether it's unconstitutional, but a matter of convenience (so, yeah, a STF façade) - https://www.jota.info/artigos/marco-civil-da-internet-consideracoes-sobre-o-julgamento-da-constitucionalidade-do-art-19

It also explains that the constitution article being used is 5 XXXII, which is about consumer rights

Article 19, the piece being judged unconstitutional, is obviously not so. The problem, from my point of view, is that it needs to add more cases where the host/provider IS liable for content, especially any content which is advertised (that is, the platform gets money to make some content more visible it to more people). But that'd actually be good, and I know not to expect good things from my country, not even as side effect.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

The funny thing is, that law was pushed by the same party that is now in power, and was spoken really well about by most of the judges criticizing it now.

[–] kubok@fedia.io 14 points 15 hours ago

The Brazilians know what they are talking about. It may be a good idea for the US to listen to some advice for a change.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 29 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Brazil actually held their coup actors accountable.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Hum... Not yet.

Up to now, just a bunch of mislead nobodies faced any consequence. And a guy that was actively blocking investigations. Nobody that really participated in it got any consequence by doing it.

[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.world 44 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I believe that is the point

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 28 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, Meta is bad for democracy

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 16 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If you were interested in being fair you’d realize how good it is for conceited fashion

🤮