5 ms·

Your Soviet comparisons are a dishonest take. They're also moot, since an issue would be authoritarianism. Regardless, yes, authorities need to exercise their a

by Fnoord 1mo ago

Your Soviet comparisons are a dishonest take. They're also moot, since an issue would be authoritarianism. Regardless, yes, authorities need to exercise their authority to ensure the integrity of elections. It is difficult to do this in a fair way, and regardless it will stir controversy (another vector to throw oil on). The external influences are documented. We know the Russians meddled with elections in The Netherlands (the 2016 Ukraine referendum), Romania (recently), Brexit, Trump 2016 (via the Clinton hack), 2020, and 2024, and likely also Hungary. In regards to Romania, yes the elections were repeated. That thing tends to happen when elections are fraudulent. > Fortunately in this case of Brazilian elections, there is nothing secret about the list of accounts which have been limited. The censors are very open about who has their account limited and why (all political candidates during elections). Because it is about a local law regarding airtime. A law Musk doesn't respect. But because now it requires an active action of the mark to get into a propaganda tarpit, instead of the timeline, it is a reasonable deterrent.

carlosjobim 1mo ago
You are not putting in effort. I haven't argued here against the measures by the election tribunals. I have argued against the commenter who wants secret censorship - specifically that the public shouldn't know who has been censored or why. That is his own suggestion - which would fit in the Soviet Union, but not in Brazilian elections. There is no such secrecy within these measures in Brazil. The accounts are limited specifically by function of belonging to political candidates. The election tribunals - the censors - want the public to know who has been limited and why. As does X. And it has nothing at all to do with any supposedly foreign influence, as hackers are dreaming up in their paranoia. Foreigners cannot run for political office. But I've noticed that people - especially on HN - will frequently use paranoia as an excuse for not making any mental effort or taking the time to understand what an article or discussion is about. Always looking to steer anything and everything into familiar thought channels where there's an already familiar conclusion, and a familiar enemy to hate. > But because now it requires an active action of the mark... The "mark"? Are you talking about voters?

by Fnoord 1mo ago

carlosjobim 1mo ago

You are not putting in effort. I haven't argued here against the measures by the election tribunals. I have argued against the commenter who wants secret censorship - specifically that the public shouldn't know who has been censored or why. That is his own suggestion - which would fit in the Soviet Union, but not in Brazilian elections. There is no such secrecy within these measures in Brazil. The accounts are limited specifically by function of belonging to political candidates. The election tribunals - the censors - want the public to know who has been limited and why. As does X. And it has nothing at all to do with any supposedly foreign influence, as hackers are dreaming up in their paranoia. Foreigners cannot run for political office. But I've noticed that people - especially on HN - will frequently use paranoia as an excuse for not making any mental effort or taking the time to understand what an article or discussion is about. Always looking to steer anything and everything into familiar thought channels where there's an already familiar conclusion, and a familiar enemy to hate. > But because now it requires an active action of the mark... The "mark"? Are you talking about voters?