6 ms·
Brazilian election filter in X For You timeline
- hnp9j9qtda 1mo ago[dead]
- backtr4ck 1mo agoChad Brasil. Forcing Elon's hand is always nice to see.
- flipbrad 1mo agoFor context: https://x.com/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 https://x.com/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20
- Cider9986 1mo agohttps://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 https://nitter.net/XBR/status/2088341967864320507?s=20 DeepL: >Starting August 16, Brazilian election law requires providers that use recommendation systems to exclude from their recommendations the official accounts of candidates registered with the Electoral Court and the posts from those accounts. >On X, these accounts and their posts will no longer be recommended in the “For You” tab during the election period unless the user explicitly follows the account. Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. This measure is expected to affect the visibility and reach of these profiles and their content. >We are implementing this measure to strictly comply with TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019. This is neither a penalty nor a change to X’s rules. We are committed to setting a new standard of transparency regarding our algorithms. Follow our work here: https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm https://github.com/xai-org/x-algorithm
- matheusmoreira 1mo ago> Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles. Sounds good to me. Filtering all recommendations is fair, and they are not censoring the profiles.
- jfoster 1mo agoI don't know anything about this specific case, but in elections more generally, wouldn't filtering all candidates equally simply favor incumbents?
- gpm 1mo agoEh, I think it'd favour whoever has the bigger media apparatus running other accounts supporting them... which also seems like a weird decision.
- matheusmoreira 1mo agoBrazilian electoral law tries to ensure all candidates have equitable access to media air time prior to the election. This filtering apparently exists to prevent distortions like X itself pushing candidates.
- jfoster 1mo agoBut incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.
- marcosdumay 1mo ago> equitable Proportionally to their incumbency. Some company distorting the reach is way worse than favoring the incumbents. But the access is not even supposed to be equitable.
- yellowcakex 1mo ago[dead]
- hndqbrg2uk 1mo ago[dead]
- mococa 1mo agoGood.
- diego_moita 1mo agoIt is interesting that attitudes, laws and initiatives that would be called "censorship" against traditional media are more and more accepted against social media platforms, all over the world in very democratic countries. I am not against these attitudes. I just want to point to that. A possible reason is that these platforms are seen as either monopolies or American imperialism agents. In both cases these are very damming perceptions. Both Musk and Zuckerberg have been disastrous in branding their platforms.
- marcosdumay 1mo agoThis is not censorship, and traditional media have always been forbidden from picking a candidate and promoting them in Brazil.
- surgical_fire 1mo agoThe posts are not being forbidden or excluded. Candidates are still free to post. It just can't be recommended in algorithmic feeds. And those platforms are absolutely agents of American imperialism. Latin American countries in particular should be very wary of these.
- pocksuppet 1mo agoThat's how Elon always does censorship. "Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach." Restricting reach is still censorship.
- matheusmoreira 1mo agoThat would be a fair argument, were it not for the fact that every candidate is being excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Were it just one or two candidates, then it would indeed be a form of "soft censorship". That doesn't seem to be the case here.
- pocksuppet 1mo agoWhat's wrong with saying that it's censoring every candidate?
- nomilk 1mo agoSeems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). Love or hate X, it deserves a massive hat tilt for its transparency here.
- Shank 1mo ago> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I wonder how many normal people actually follow political accounts like this. I follow my local government because they sometimes tweet emergency info but I don’t follow candidates at all. I don’t follow political influencers either. It’s far too noisy.
- Fnoord 1mo ago> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting. But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That is the purpose of his action. Musk does the same with regards to other democracies, such as AfD in Germany.
- carlosjobim 1mo agoYour reasoning sounds like levels upon levels of paranoia. Read out loud to yourself what you are saying. You're saying that it's 1. Good to limit certain people from being heard and 2. Bad to let the public know which people have been censored. I couldn't think of a seasoned KGB commander with more totalitarian reasoning than what you are voicing. Not even the censors you are defending have anything against the public knowing which accounts are limited and why.
- 1mo ago
- threetwigs 1mo ago[dead]
- cantfixstupid 1mo agoBluesky creators: How are you feeling right now
- marcosdumay 1mo agoDoes Bluesky have an opaque algorithm based filter?
- tene80i 1mo agoI don’t think people on bluesky particularly care about X. Twitter turned horrible, so they left to do their own thing. Each to their own.