They don’t. But if they already have it in for someone, which the Democrats in Congress almost certainly do right now, public opinion can give them a cover to act.

It’s certainly not for our benefit, but if one group of shitlords wants to take another shitlord down a few pegs, I’m certainly going to enjoy the show.

YOU might not. But I’m sure the politicians and bureaucrats who determine whether Musk’s businesses continue getting billions in taxpayer funded subsidies would sure like to know if the public is behind continuing to do that. I for one would consider it a bonus if say, the Democrats won control in November, looked at the numbers and decided none of their supporters are behind Musk, determined he’s been playing fast and loose using taxpayer dollars to fund pushing his own political agenda, and turned off the free ride.

Perhaps, but that motivation is only useful when it can be translated into political action - not creating an untrained army to be fed directly into fascist prisons and police brutality meat grinders.

You might be creating more revolutionaries under a conservofascist administration, but in practice it’s just doing this:

Edit: You don’t even need to look far into the past to see that this doesn’t work. Look at Hong Kong. The city’s leadership swung to fascism, and your prediction came true. Some of the biggest protests in the history of the city by some of the most motivated demonstrators… followed by a brutal crackdown, arrest, exile, and now fascist control of the city is more or less guaranteed for generations. The population is no longer CAPABLE of mounting ANY kind of resistance. Yes, Hong Kong had its fascism forced on it rather than choosing it at the ballot box, but the result will be the same. Fascism doesn’t care how it gets its power.

None of that is incompatible or inconsistent with a Harris victory. If this is your expressed goal and desired outcome, it is MUCH easier to do under Harris than under Trump where any action you take is more or less guaranteed to be met with responses from any number of empowered supremacist groups.

Also, I only EVER hear these revolutionary ideas and pushes during the last 6 months before an election when people proudly virtue signal about their intent not to vote for the Democrat. Just like with third parties, where is all of this political will and activity during the off-years when there’s time to actually BUILD a grassroots movement?

I’m with you. Our choices suck. The time to start doing something about that is November 6th, after the election is won and a backslide has been prevented. Build out a movement and come back in 2028 with a platform, a base, and a candidate.

deleted by creator

They were as bad, but there weren’t so many. Most of them weren’t “activated” yet.

Yeah, it sounds like the kind of thing you could do but would pay out the butt for as a private service. Road map books and asking directions were my go-to.

Of course, post-internet but pre-GPS there was always mapquest.

To be fair, I think people looked at the folks who were into mermaids as outlandish too. “Been around for a long time” doesn’t mean the same thing as “totally accepted socially”.

Hardly worth mentioning at this point, but this is illegal.

Here’s to the Losers in my ass

What if you’re pirating to avoid agreeing to an EULA that lets a giant corporation murder your family members?

Actually, I’m willing to believe he IS their best people.

This works. I ran a linux distro in off hours on my work laptop for years this way.

Absolutely! For example, look at his running mate! He’s got some of the best security in the world and it’s totally prevented shoo… oh…

Twitter is an international company that officially operates in multiple countries in multiple languages with large numbers of users in those countries. Truth social is a tiny media network operating in a single country in essentially one language. I don’t believe for a second you don’t understand the difference, and it is such a silly and irrelevant thing to bring into this conversation that I can only conclude you aren’t arguing in good faith at this point, and you’re just trying to waste my time. You have a good one.

First of all, who are “they” in this scenario?

Because I don’t think you mean the Brazilian government, because it’s relatively obvious.

There is no need to ban or censure speech for reasons of inciting violence if it doesn’t have a big enough audience to actually do that.

And secondly, Truth Social’s tiny audience is almost completely US citizens, who generally speaking don’t speak or understand Portuguese, and the network doesn’t officially operate in the country in any capacity.

You are correct.

Brazil is not a totalitarian regime. The resistance to deplatforming in this case isn’t the same as, say, resisting deplatforming democracy activists in Taiwan, which X would likely not do.

The context matters. Brazil is a democratic nation with checks and balances that has defined what it considers illegal speech. X is of course, entitled to disagree with that assessment. And Brazil is free to correctly assess that X is not following its laws and ban it from operating there. That’s all there is to it. If the Brazilian people think the government’s definition of illegal speech is wrong, this government will be booted out in the next election. It’s that simple.

This is the danger. Propaganda is not the issue. Illegal speech is. Speech that incites violence, reveals classified information, or endangers innocent people.

Lemmy is not a company, but if, for example, Lemmy starts posting the names, addresses, and home security details of Brazilian officials, you can rest assured they would block those instances as well.

X being a single corporate entity gives it different responsibilities because it operates as a business, but either way, the platform flouting the law will and should be blocked. Free speech is not a free-for-all and has limitations.