Brazil just banned X. Could other countries follow suit?

It wasn't like a law banning X. They were Court ordered to do something and they didn't do it.

Could that happen in other countries? I mean sure but not the way you're implying.

The UK government has already accused them of stirring up riots.
We ban piracy sites on the largest ISPs, and could easily add X to that list.

I'm genuinely surprised why the UK haven't already

Under what law?
UK currently holds the people that post things liable for their own words. X, the platform, just relays what is said. Same as Lemmy. Same as Mastodon.
If you ban X I don't see why those other platforms wouldn't be next.
Now should people/organisations/companies leave X? Absolutely! Evacuate like it's a house of fire. Should it be shut down by legal means? No.
- An argument being made in another social media case (involving TikTok) is that algorithmic feeds of other users' content are effectively new content, created by the platform. So if Twitter does anything other than a chronological sorting, it could be considered to be making its own, deliberately-produced content, since they're now in control of what you see and when you see it. Depending on how the TikTok argument gets interpreted in the courts, it could possibly affect how Twitter can operate in the future.
- Twitter (or rather musk) chooses what it "relays" or boosts. Unlike lemmy, unlike Mastodon.
- The Australian Government issued a bunch of take down notices to Twitter and Musk said no
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/what-can-the-government-do-about-x/103752600
  Musk decided to block them in Australian only which didn't satisfy the Australian Government
  He took them to court and the court sided with Twitter, (x)
  https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/australian-court-elon-musk-x-freedom-of-speech-row-1236000561/
  The complexity and contradictions were illustrated by Tim Begbie, the lawyer representing the eSafety Commissioner in court. He said that in other cases X had chosen of its own accord to remove content, but that it resisted the order from the Australian government.
  “X says [..] global removal is reasonable when X does it because X wants to do it, but it becomes unreasonable when it is told to do it by the laws of Australia,” Begbie told the court.
- Here's the thing about nation state governments. They can pass laws. It's kind of the main thing they do.
- I agree. It would set a terrible precedent, even if it’s terribly tempting. I’d say it’s better to ask people to leave instead.
I'm sure they would like to but they don't really have the authority.

unfortunately i still have to side against national firewalls even when i think they're extremely funny

I initially agreed with you but this is a bit different. Actually haven't banned anything it's just a court order so it wasn't done because some politician decided it should happen it was done because of things that Twitter chose to do, or not do as the case may be.
Presumably this won't be permanent provided the capitulate.
I think they don't have a literal national firewall, rather they demanded every single ISP in the country to block the domain.
- i'm pretty sure that's how most national firewalls work. it's still government censorship of internet resources on a national level

I'm all for adopting Wayland but some compatibility should be preserved. An outright ban seems a bit extreme.

😂👌🏻

Yes, they should.

Twitter already bans and takes down posts for most other nations, Musk even posted about how they have to to operate.

This is quite literally no different. If you want to operate in a country, love or hate it, you have to agree to their laws for their users. If the EU laws say posting revenge porn, you can't ignore them and say nuh uh we're a US company free speech. If Japan has a law saying posting bomb instructions is an instaban, you have follow suit. And in Brazil, 7 accounts, seven were identified by a court as needing to be taken down for spreading misinformation. You can object, but then stop doing it for the other countries as well, because Twitter absolutely must cooperate with the US and EU on these requests or they get massive fines as well. And they do.

Its a stupid act of grandstanding and Elon thought they would blink first, or the fallout wouldn't be so obvious and massive.

I hope so.

I think any country would ban a business whose CEO ignores requests by its judges and even proceeds to taunt them. An international business that decides which laws it does or does not follow is pretty dystopian, all X had to do was what Google has done for ages, comply with the law regionally.

Musk complied with India, why isn't he complying with Brazil?

Because our current government is center left and the accounts were supporters of the right. That's all there is to it, he even reinstated Monark's account, a podcaster from here that fled to the USA after arguing that Nazis should be free to have their own political party, and after arriving there said that we shouldn't criminalize the consumption of CSAM, just production.

Yes

Plenty of good reasons to ban things, even if they’re useful. Asbestos. In fact, banning asbestos didn’t harm anyone, as your comment would imply. It actually helped people.

I hope not. Ban = authoritarianism

They were banned for refusing to follow Brazilian laws, specially laws about disinformation. Twitter was banned in Brazil because its actively working as a propaganda outlet.
Propaganda = authoritarianism
- I think they were banned because they didn't have a representative in the country that they could serve those allegations to.
authoritarianism is when no twitter
Yes, I do have the authority to ban you from my house. That isn't authoritarianism, it's just not wanting you in my house.
- I don’t want to go to your house

Let's hope so. Destroy all a-social media platforms!

Judge tells the company to take down profiles that have been known to be used solely for spreading political lies. Company complies. Manbaby buys company, pedals back on previous compliance. Judge tells company to comply again. Company ignores it. Judge makes it a legal order. Company removes its legal representative from the country, so the company no longer "answers to the country's laws". Company's IP addresses gets country wide block. That is censorship because...? Freeze peach?
Not that the judge in question, Alexandre de Moraes, is any sort of role model, what with him imposing a R$50,000 fine to anyone using a VPN to bypass the block, which is a clear overstepping of the order and hitting end users because "fuck them", this is likely to be overruled later today. He also ordered to freeze Starlink's assets (because they didn't comply with the order to block xitter).
- The Brazilian Internet Law (Marco Civil da Internet) says that the content to be removed via judicial intervention must be specified. It does not allow the blocking of entire accounts from a social media platform. In fact, Brazilian Constitution forbids this kind of censorship (Censura Prévia). The decision to block X nationwide is based on a series of decisions that blatantly violate Brazilian Law.
  By the way, the dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered Starlink's asset freeze before Starlink wouldn't comply with X blocking.
No. The difference is we have democracy instead of despotism so you can vote for someone else if you are unhappy with your government. Also free press. And no, Europe ain't perfect, but equating it to Russia is laughable.
- Here in Brazil we have a judge that concentrates the powers of: judge, prosecutor, victim, legislator, chief of Federal Police. And he wasn't elected by the people. Are we still really a democracy? Are we so different from countries like Russia?
I think you need to cancel your citizenship (and your family members' citizenships) and move to russia or PRC.
They go low, we go high.
They give Twitter requests which it compiles with, but Twitter doesn't compile with ours.
Hungarian democracy fell partly due to free speech absolutism.