I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there’s clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn’t get him to shut up. Maybe there’s situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it’s some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.

Nope definitely not why would I do that to myself

This is the good kind of AI that’s actually useful instead of the BS AI like LLMs

lol, trying to hedge against downvotes from the anti-AI crowd?

I don’t have an issue with reasonable moderation, but I object to the idea that every pattern of moderation should just be accepted and that censorship isn’t a problem worth worrying about.

Reddit doesn’t have a modlog, so most of the removed comments are lost forever and there is no accountability for them, but a few of them can be seen through Reveddit, and the ones I see are not off topic or ideological rants. For instance the first one I see is

Are they going to shoot up the wrong car with innocent ladies in it again looking for this guy? Edit: Guess they managed to take him down without hitting any civilians, I guess good job for only killing the bad guy

Obviously referring to the Chris Dorner shootings which would be very relevant here, in a very reasonable way. I think it’s fair to assume that r/news moderators simply don’t want that guy mentioned at all.

It used to be a better place for arguments

I think it’s actually a serious problem if the most prominent places for discussion are heavily censored

So your claim is that states specifically don’t have this authority, only the federal government? What’s your reason for thinking this?

edit: Here’s an example showing that they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair%2C_Inc.

There’s also laws like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

The businesses that the CCPA refers to do not need to be physically present in California. As long as the business is active in the state and meets the requirements, they are considered to be under the CCPA

A number of state based internet regulation laws have recently run into trouble in courts, but that’s because of First Amendment concerns, not questions over whether merely being accessible to state residents gives jurisdiction to enforce them, which afaik it does.

The difference between what the laws are trying to enforce is a different issue though. The point is a website can be prosecuted just for being accessible when what it offers is against local laws.

Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Look at what happened to Binance; not a US website, not technically allowing US customers, still successfully prosecuted by the US government for not doing enough to prevent people in the US from using it.

Because refried beans are as you mention no longer countable, I think “refried beans” should be taken all together as a singular compound noun rather than the word “beans” modified by an adjective. So then “too much refried beans” is the correct way to say it because it isn’t plural.

I liked it, I thought it was a good choice how the xenomorphs took a back seat to a lies and betrayal style humanoid villain, since they use that to explore the themes of the series from a different angle.

it may be moral in some extreme examples

Are they extreme? Is bad censorship genuinely rare?

but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I think it’s relevant that tech platforms, and software more generally, has a sort of reach and influence that international organizations do not, especially when it comes to the flow of information. What is the limit you’re suggesting here on what may be done to oppose harmful censorship? That it be legitimized by some official consensus? That a “right to censor” exist and be enforced but be subject to some form of formalized regulation? That would exempt any tyranny of the most influential states.

I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about

You can interpret my words how you want and I can’t stop you willfully misinterpreting me, but I am telling you explicitly about what I am saying and what I am not saying because I have something specific I want to communicate. When you argue that

I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region

In the given context, you are asserting that states have an apparently unconditional moral right to censor, and that this right means third parties have a duty to go along with it and not interfere. I think this is wrong as a general principle, independent of the specific example of Twitter vs Brazil. If the censorship is wrong, then it is ok to fight it.

Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

Ok, but the question is, what can be done about it? Say a country is doing that. A web service defies that government by providing downloads of those books to its citizens. Are they morally bound to not do that? Should international regulations prevent what they are doing? I think no, it is ok and good to do, if the censorship is harmful.

Since my argument isn’t about what should be censored, I’m intentionally leaving the boundaries of “harmful censorship” open to interpretation, save the assertion that it exists and is widely practiced.

I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.

That could be true in a literal sense (the country successfully bans the use of the service), or not (the country isn’t willing or able to prevent its use). Morally though, I’d say you have a place wherever people need your help, whether or not their government wants them to be helped.

If a government is imposing harmful censorship I think supporting resistance of that censorship is the right thing to do. A company that isn’t located in that country, ethically shouldn’t be complying with such orders. Make them burn political capital taking extreme and implausible measures.

The company being successful probably wasn’t doing humanity any favors anyway