You never know what the political world has in store. Before Alexandre de Moraes, doing blatant preventive censorship was unthinkable. When he made this practice into the “new normal”, he radicalized the right even more, and they might turn to dirty tricks to get to him.

Any flavor that would send Alexandre de Moraes to the jail cell, his rightful place.

Brazil’s dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes only had free reign last year to do what he did because the US used to have a living corpse as the president. Now, with Orange-Man-Bad as president, I don’t know if the same judge would have the guts to block X nationwide again. Especially with Trump showing he’s not afraid to impose tariffs on a whim. And it’s also apparent that Trump hears what Elon has to say, and Elon is hungry for revenge. The judge only needs to step out of the line for Elon to retaliate.

From The Verge article:

"Twitter says that it doesn’t know why the data suggests its algorithm favors right-leaning content, noting that it’s “a significantly more difficult question to answer as it is a product of the interactions between people and the platform.” However, it may not be a problem with Twitter’s algorithm specifically — Steve Rathje, a Ph.D. candidate who studies social media, published the results of his research that explains how divisive content about political outgroups is more likely to go viral.

The Verge reached out to Rathje to get his thoughts about Twitter’s findings. “In our study, we also were interested in what kind of content is amplified on social media and found a consistent trend: negative posts about political outgroups tend to receive much more engagement on Facebook and Twitter,” Rathje stated. “In other words, if a Democrat is negative about a Republican (or vice versa), this kind of content will usually receive more engagement.”

If we take Rathje’s research into account, this could mean that right-leaning posts on Twitter successfully spark more outrage, resulting in amplification."

In other words: it’s not the algorithm that favors one side of the polical spectrum. It’s just that right-wing users know how to make more engaging posts. And that is dispite being sabotaged by moderation policies that favors left-leaning views.

I don’t know the specifics of this South African law, but isn’t it basically punishing today’s landowners for the wrongs of their ancestors? And they’re taking over land without compensation? That’s nuts! Here in my country, land is only expropriated without payment when the owner uses it for illegal drugs like marijuana.

I’m waiting for your counter-arguments. Or is ad hominem the only thing you know?

The problem was when lefties were in charge of Twitter’s moderation team. They were trigger-happy in banning anyone who didn’t agree with their self-proclaimed “social consensus.” In this last U.S. election cycle, we found out this consensus was a lie. Examples:

User1: “I’m against illegal immigration. Deport the illegals now!”

Mod: “Racist!! You’re permanently banned!”

User2: “We gotta have stricter laws for legal refugees. They don’t respect our local customs and bring social issues (i.e., higher crime rates) that burden the taxpayer.”

Mod: “Nazi!! You’re permanently banned!”

User3: “I’m against hormonal therapies and sex-change surgeries on kids. We gotta have legislation that forbids it and makes doctors accountable.”

Mod: “Transphobe!! You’re permanently banned!”

They maliciously extrapolate dissenting opinions to paint them as something bad. People have the right to be dissatisfied with current policies and advocate for change. That shouldn’t be a bannable offense.

Twitter 1.0 outright banned right-leaning users. Silencing dissenting voices from online political discourse isn’t considered “gaming the system”?

Does anyone remember when Twitter 1.0 censored stories about the Hunter Biden Laptop? On my book, that’s manipulation.

X has been accused of manipulating its systems to give far-right posts and politicians greater visibility over other political groups.

Before Elon bought Twitter, the system did the exact same thing, but with left-leaning posts. Back then, the French prosecutors didn’t seem to care. Now that the political tide is changing, they suddenly care?

When Zuckerberg mentioned ‘secret courts in South America that order content removal without publicly disclosing it,’ everyone in Brazil immediately knew he was referring to our Supreme Court. The Court has been working in tandem with the federal administration to suppress laws approved by Congress, including a 2013 law that implemented a notice-and-takedown system similar to the DMCA. Under this system, internet content providers are only held responsible if they fail to remove content after receiving a specific court order.

The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional, while the federal government simply parrots the same fallacious arguments made by the judges. Every article I’ve read on this subject fails to identify which part of our Constitution the system supposedly violates, and I’ve personally searched for it without success. I suspect the Court is determined to stifle free speech in Brazil and will come up with an excuse for the law’s unconstitutionality later—likely something vague, like ‘violation of human dignity.’ Supreme Court judges often use this phrase liberally in their televised oral arguments.

The federal government and the Supreme Court claim to be protecting democracy, yet they seem unconcerned with preserving one of its core tenets: the separation of powers."

Al Jazeera, a news network banned in both Israel and Saudi Arabia for alleged biased reporting, had one of its reporters identified as a Hamas militant during the early stages of the war. Seems legit?

I got genuinely curious, and so I asked ChatGPT to write a less biased headline. I got this: “Israeli airstrikes target Hamas militants hiding in civilian areas, leading to tragic collateral damage at a hospital in northern Gaza.”

“World Socialist Web Site”. No wonder the headline is so biased.

The moment Hezbollah resorted to launching missiles at Israeli territory, and Israel fought back, then diplomacy failed already.

Then maybe they should identify themselves as war inspectors or historians? “Peacekeepers” is kinda misleading…

If they’re indeed peacekeepers, then they failed their job miserably. As it stands, their only usefulness is being human shields for Hezbollah.

Hezbollah can throw any excuse they want, but the reality is that they attacked first. They should have known the limits of their military strength and shown restraint against a much more powerful nation. Too bad they were lacking in common sense. Now all their top leaders are eliminated, half their missile launchers are destroyed, and if a ground incursion by Israel occurs, they’re basically finished.

And if Israel ends up occupying the south of Lebanon, it won’t be the first time they’ve done so. In the year 2000, they voluntarily withdrew from the south of Lebanon after defeating Hezbollah, in the hopes that they’d stop attacking Israeli territory. Looks like being the nice guy with a terrorist group that’s determined to destroy them at any cost is not a very good idea.

Hezbollah has been sending missiles to Israeli territory for almost a year. So they started this war, but Israel has been very lenient by not starting a full-scale war until now. The patience has run out. Like they used to say: fuck around and find out.

Maybe they’re eyeing potential spoils of war? These military operations will need sources of financing.

But, realistically, they’re probably planing the formation of an exclusion zone to avoid Hezbollah installing missile launchers so close to Israel’s borders.