The ban follows a long-running battle between Brazil’s supreme court and Elon Musk. It shows the country will no longer tolerate tech giants ignoring the rule of law.
Your comment makes it apparent that you fundamentally do not even understand what censorship is. Legality has nothing to do with what censorship is and everything to do with limiting freedom of communication. Even something as basic (and undeniably both good and necessary) as taking down cp content is censorship.
In my view, censorship is inherently good only in limited circumstances, usually involving either that A) The very creation of the content is irreversably harmful (see above) or B) The content is highly intrusive (essentially forcing the audience to partake) in combination with consumption of said content being irreversably harmful (consider regulation of advertising in public spaces).
Historically, freedom of communication and organization has been the primary antidote to many authoritarian organizations (organized religions, autocratic monarchies, fascist & totalitarian regimes, corrupt leaders etc.), and this necessarily requires that centralized institutions cannot (in general) be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable discourse - that includes regulating “disinformation” outside of limited scopes.
Fundamentally, if our leaders say we are incapable of discerning fact from fiction, and rob us of that autonomy, they are also robbing us of our ability to freely choose our leaders, effectively demolishing democracy.
Your comment makes it apparent that you fundamentally do not even understand what censorship is. Legality has nothing to do with what censorship is and everything to do with limiting freedom of communication. Even something as basic (and undeniably both good and necessary) as taking down cp content is censorship.
In my view, censorship is inherently good only in limited circumstances, usually involving either that A) The very creation of the content is irreversably harmful (see above) or B) The content is highly intrusive (essentially forcing the audience to partake) in combination with consumption of said content being irreversably harmful (consider regulation of advertising in public spaces).
Historically, freedom of communication and organization has been the primary antidote to many authoritarian organizations (organized religions, autocratic monarchies, fascist & totalitarian regimes, corrupt leaders etc.), and this necessarily requires that centralized institutions cannot (in general) be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable discourse - that includes regulating “disinformation” outside of limited scopes.
Fundamentally, if our leaders say we are incapable of discerning fact from fiction, and rob us of that autonomy, they are also robbing us of our ability to freely choose our leaders, effectively demolishing democracy.