We should ask it what the fox says.

> Even if the hardware is already firewalled away from the public internet.

Then just use an internal CA that signs the certs for as long as you want? Why even get a public CA cert for that, if you control everyone talking to it?

This is completely true, we have a lot of people now saying the first amendment needs modifications so they can censor people they think are wrong, including Hillary Clinton who said "we lose total control" if they don't do this. Problem is a lot of people only ever supported the first amendment because it was helpful to them at the time.

> my addon was blocked just because of a "trigger word" inside a comment. When I removed the problematic word, it was accepted, without any functional change. (No, it was not a racist slur or anything similar ;-)).

What was the word, "master"?

> I'm still waiting to see any evidence of such a secret order.

They're up on the AlexandreFiles along with English translations if you want to read them. I linked to an archive so that people censored can read them, but the originals are at https://x.com/AlexandreFiles though I note that X seems to require login to see anything.

> But Brazil has also criminalized reading X. If a Brazilian citizen is caught accessing X, they can be arrested or fined $9k per day, about half the median household income.

It's twice the minimum wage, per day, at R$50,000, which is a little under $9k USD. That said, they've at least backed off the fines for individuals.

The part that's really crazy is the original order was a secret order giving X just two hours to remove a list of accounts that includes a sitting Brazilian senator. So they were going to censor and make X take the blame for the STF's censorship.

That really doesn't sit well with me.

I don't believe this is what they're really worried about, because they could just go after Mastodon if they really were worried primarily about CSAM.

This is "won't someone think of the children" used to go after platforms saying stuff they want to censor.

> And no fucking shit it's going to cause problems. Christ if you drink enough dihydrogen monoxide it'll kill you...

The results appear to be pretty bogus. You might want to read here as it's pretty questionable why there should be huge results... only in male babies, but not female? Not to mention all the finagling that looks like p-hacking.

I'm sure there are many arguments they can go over in court, but that is a very weak argument, because individual advertisers could simply have their own standards to protect their own brands. Why does a need for moderation mean that competitors controlling the majority of online ad spend need to work together on this? Can't they set their own standards and agree or disagree on whether to advertise in a place?

The legal issue isn't that they want to protect their brands, the legal issue is because you have competitors who control most of the market working together when that's not even necessary to do what you're saying they need to do, whether or not Musk agrees with that.

The reason they seem to want this is to prevent themselves from competing with each other by advertising on X, so they can dictate what the market offers. That really looks like restraint of trade.

> Funny how he had no problem breaking American or "international law" back then to enable censorship.

That was a choice between allowing the people there access to some of X or none of it, and he thought that having access to X would be beneficial because the censorship would be very leaky, as it always is.

This action is to prevent the arrest of one of his people in Brazil on the orders of the head of the SDF (essentially the Brazilian Supreme Court).

> The fact that Musk does censor twitter (try entering the words "cis" or "cisgender") is going to scupper his lawsuit against advertisers. Clearly he does recognize the need for some moderation, even if it's the wrong moderation.

What does that have to do with a lawsuit over collusion in the advertising market by an organization that controls most of the online ad spend?

I mean, you can read it right here. I've gone through it and I really can't see how deciding that certain words may be forbidden when used as slurs doesn't appear to interact with antitrust law.

> To those reading along, please hold your Trump BS. The Mueller Report showed two things. Russian Influence was real, and that conspiracy or cooperation between Russia and Trump was NOT real.

I remember reading the examples of Russian influence, which Congress publicized at the time. They were a bunch of Russian memes posted as individual PDF files for some ungodly reason. One of the first few PDFs contained a picture of Jesus arm wrestling Satan and the others weren't meaningfully different.

"It's the worst day so far" is pretty much what I'm thinking too.