Is that really true? I think platforms have strong network effects that make migrations to alternatives (like Bluesky) very difficult.

The network effect has negative value to the user; if the platform went away, everyone would migrate to a better platform, and everyone would be better off. The network effect is an artificial barrier to competition that only benefits the owner of said network, and it only works because collective action is harder than collective inaction.

Most posts on reddit aren't called posts. They're called comments. And nobody called posts on Twitter "posts" either. They were tweets.

If you go around talking about a website's posts, and the people who use the website call them something else, you're going to sound uninformed.

> people didn't download bluesky

1 people? 5 people? 10,000,000 people?

I'm sure some people downloaded Bluesky. What % of Twitter users went to Bluesky and never came back? In the long run, probably not a huge amount?

Everybody wants to pray for the downfall of Elon Musk.

> Protesters invade the National Congress of Brazil

There were plenty of reasons to doubt the results, and these judges made numerous contributions to those reasons with their actions. They resisted two attempts from our representatives to add an anonymous paper trail to the "unquestionable" voting machines. They disproportionately censored Bolsonaro and his supporters in the months leading up to the election, called everything they said "fake news". Then they rendered him ineligible due to his perfectly reasonable criticism of the voting machines, out of all the stupid things he said. Then they went to public events to show off about it and say they were personally responsible for defeating him. How do you expect people to accept this as legitimate?

As far as I'm concerned, these judges launched the real and successful coup all the way back in 2019 when they usurped power and created a secret tribunal to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish crimes against themselves. The constitution says that secret tribunals are prohibited, yet they get away with it because they're the highest court and there's no one who can override them. Politicians who can impeach these judges are no doubt corrupt and all it takes to intimidate them is the unearthing of some scandal they were no doubt part of. Thus our representatives do not matter, the laws they write do not matter, these unelected judges do whatever they want and police obeys them. Power does not emanate from us, it is concetrated in their pens.

Due to this context, I see those people as blameless protesters of an unjust system who went on to become political prisoners of these judges. Who are you supposed to turn to when you believe the supreme court is violating the constitution? These fools turned to the "heroic" brazilian military and begged them on their knees to sort this mess out. The rest is history.

Yet the old Twitter fought and won against far more of these orders in these places, whereas Musks Twitter follows them more readily. Why do you think that is? I see two possibilities:

1) the governments have suddenly improved their approach for these orders, making them harder to win against in court

2) Twitter isn't fighting against these orders as much anymore

I certainly know which option seems more likely...

I respect your opinion, but that is really not how the Brazilian legal system works.

For instance, the constitution says that “the home is the inviolable refuge of the individual”, but this applies not only to “homes” per se, but also to every closed space where one may expect privacy.

Another example: the constitution says that only “Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country” have rights, but foreign tourists and legal entities have rights, too.

It goes both ways: the spirit of the law extends some rights and limits others.

> The Brazilian constitution also prohibits secret tribunals, which is what Moraes is doing with censorship under gag orders.

Secret court orders are a common exception virtually everywhere and have absolutely nothing to do with “secret tribunals”. Brazil’s constitution explicitly allows this exception in article 93, paragraph IX, in order to preserve the privacy of interested parties. In addition, secret orders are common in cases in which public orders would have hampered the effectiveness of said orders.

Oh, who nominated this Justice, was a right-wing president as well.

And I certainly did not witness anything you speak of. I don't remember reading any news of any "doxxing campaign" either. As far as I know, these are just politician accounts.

Someone here on HN once asked who the people named in the court orders were. I found nothing related to what you said when I looked them up on the internet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41420849

Worst guy in there seems to be the guy who told Bolsonaro to order the military to close down the supreme court. Inciting the armed forces against the other powers is a crime but censoring him for it is still unconstitutional. They even censored their wives and daughters.

What is messed up here is how those things happened. It's not even clear if it's about hate speech, because the the censoring orders are themselves secret.

But then, the way Twitter handled things was messed up too.

Where is this exception? Because I looked for it and I didn't find it. Every thread about this topic, I ask my fellow brazilians to cite this exception and I have yet to get an actual response. Best I've got was an anti-nazism law which is inferior to the constitution and therefore irrelevant, and should have been declared unconstitutional anyway. Not because I support nazism but because banning nazism, a political ideology, would open the door to banning other political ideologies.

So unless someone explains to me what this "exception" is, I won't be convinced.

Ironic