Talk:Blocking of Twitter in Brazil

Brazilian investigation? Censorship category

It is a confidential investigation, to which only the judge involved has access [1]. In addition, the editor has removed the category for censorship in Brazil that one of those involved is already in. I would like this category to be included, as well as changing the title to the same one as the pt-br entry “Bloqueio do X no Brasil” (en: Blockade of X in Brazil), which is in fact what this is about. Paraguassuu (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Please indicate the multiple reliable and independent sources that refer to the mentioned court decision as an act of censorship. Otherwise, it is nothing more than obvious POV-pushing, which should be reverted for violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy in accordance with WP:CATPOV. Regarding the title change, I am not opposed to it in principle (considering that the article is still in its very early stages and its scope can be easily altered), but a request should be made following the relevant policy on this matter. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether or not someone who said in this talk page that Musk is "bitching like a 13-year-old douchebag" is really concerned about our neutrality on this theme... In any case, there are sources that refer to the act as censorship, such as O Antagonista for instance (see this). It is considered a right-wing news website, but isn't it neutral to include sources of major newspapers on both sides of the political spectrum, or would it be WP:FALSEBALANCE? The more mainstream, left-wing-aligned sources at least attribute the words "censor" and "censorship" to Musk, as we should if we really want to provide a neutral approach to the subject. - Munmula (talk · contribs) 16:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

A personal opinion is not a violation of neutrality, and much has been said about the perceived immaturity of Musk's behavior. A opinion article from O Antagonista is far from enough to justify framing this event as censorship, especially given that its author is deeply involved in far right conspiracy theories. Musk failed to comply with basic brazilian laws, that was the reason behind the suspension of the platform. I am strongly against these suggestive use of 'see also' and categories. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet only provides for the deletion of the post itself, not the account. The investigation added to inquiry 4.874, which has also been the subject of controversy for five years, is used to support demands for censorship. The requirement that there be a legal representation is the only request based on an existing law. [1] Below I have added some editorials that mention censorship promoted by the court previously.

Censorship promoted by Moraes must end -- Folha de S.Paulo

Alexandre de Moraes, the censor -- Estadão

The mysterious censorship of Alexandre de Moraes -- O Antagonista

It should be remembered that not long ago, the same investigation was used to justify an arrest without evidence that lasted six months, without the lawyers having access to the case file. [2] The interview given to Folha de S. Paulo by Filipe Martins was later censored and criticized by Marco Aurélio, former minister of the Supreme Court. [3]

The same investigation was also used to accuse passengers on an airport of aggression against the “rule of law and Brazilian democracy” after a disagreement with Moraes' son at an airport in Rome. After having access to the images, an expert report was issued confirming that the images had been altered, according to Poder 360. [4]

I mean, there is no right conclusion here, since a new one is decided with each opinion and this changes the entire legal system of the country, as criticized in the article, the decision to freeze the accounts of Starlink, which has nothing to do with X Corp. Only distance from the facts will give us certainty about what is happening in Brazil now. Paraguassuu (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem in saying that the Supreme Court has engaged in censorship, in many moments and by the hand of almost all the judges. To say that this decision is censorship, however, is a whole another level, unrelated 'precedents' cannot substantiate it, and the information you presented is almost totally unrelated with the suspension of twitter, besides that, some affirmations are doubtful. I can think of at least one thing that binds Starlink and X. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Title

Why is this article titled "investigation into Elon Musk"? It appears to be an investigation into Twitter/X and their compliance with Brazilian law, rather than into Musk personally. AusLondonder (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Metonymy. kencf0618 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a rough consensus that the event of the blocking of Twitter is the dominant component of this topic, and that, while some other suggested variations have also been found suitable ("Block" vs. "Blocking"), "Blocking of Twitter in Brazil" is a suitable name for this event. Using the word "ban" was disfavored relative to "block". Opposers stated that there is an ambiguity between Twitter and X, but they did not explain how that should influence the decision of how to best title this article, i.e. what the relevance is from the standpoint of policy—It was not explained how either "Twitter" or "X" causes undesirable ambiguity (or imprecision) in the sense of the article title policy. The blocking not being permanent and the investigation still going on does not appear to have a connection with the naming policy and no such connection was tendered. A comment that closing should pause until the Twitter RM is done had no bearing on this process. If the Twitter article is renamed to X, someone can just rename this to "Blocking of X in Brazil". Or start an RM. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 17:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk → Blocking of Twitter in Brazil – The main subject of this article is the blocking of Twitter/X in Brazil, according to the court order issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes on August 30. Even though the investigation into Elon Musk began in April 2024, it is the blocking of the website that received widespread coverage from international media. Most sources cited were written on the decision to block the website, which is also what most paragraphs in the article discuss.Therefore, the main topic of this article is the blocking of Twitter/X in Brazil, and should be titled as such per WP:PRECISION. Relevant information on the investigation into Musk that led to the blocking can be added to the background section. Since the Wikipedia article on X still calls it Twitter, the title for this article should do the same for consistency. Alex98 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Ban" or "Blocking"? ArionStar (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Most articles use "block" or "blocking" rather than "ban":

• Blocking of Meta Platforms in Russia
• Blocking of YouTube videos in Germany
• Block of Wikipedia in Turkey
• Block of Wikipedia in Russia
• Blocking of Telegram in Russia

Alex98 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject California, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Freedom of speech have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Suspension of Twitter in Brazil or Blocking of Twitter in Brazil. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ArionStar, Alex98, ElijahPepe, FactOrOpinion, Philoratio, Paraguassuu, A.WagnerC, Onel5969, LemurianPatriot, HapHaxion, and Borgenland: pinging users who have edited the page. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support a Block. Borgenland (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support moving to "Suspension", I feel as though this will be a temporary issue and not a long-term ban. LemurianPatriot (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support I prefer "Blocking" rather than "Suspension". ArionStar (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Ban of Twitter in Brazil for consistency with Ban of Twitter in Nigeria. Otherwise, move the latter to "Blocking". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose "Ban", per article The order will remain in effect until the platform complies with the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, pays accumulated fines totaling R$18.3 million, and appoints a representative in Brazil, a requirement grounded in Brazilian law. "Suspension" is the most appropriate word IMO; "ban" is completely inadequate. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  RodRabelo7, a reminder that WP:BLP also applies to Talk pages. You should edit your comment about Musk. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  @FactOrOpinion, I'm sorry. As an wikt:ESLer, sometimes I'm not sure if the way I express myself may be seen as offensive. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  You could say the same about Nigeria. In January 2022, Nigeria lifted its ban after Twitter agreed to pay an "applicable tax" and establish a legal entity within the country sometime in the first quarter of 2022. Mimyuu (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — The ambiguity over "Twitter" and "X"—which is the subject of a move request that appears to be slanted towards X—led to the current title, which I believe suffices. The block is not what is significant here, the prolonged conflict between de Moraes and Musk is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support — The arguments here seem convincing to me. The article is more about the block than about the investigation, and "block" or "blocking" make more sense than "ban". The article on the Portuguese Wikipedia is also "Block of Twitter in Brazil". As to Twitter's renaming to X, most people still refer to it as Twitter, and I think this discussion is more a site-wide issue that would imply renaming all articles with the platform's name in it, rather than a discussion about the title of one specific article. Munmula (talk · contribs) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about the proposed move. The topic isn't simply that Twitter is being blocked in Brazil, but the legal conflict between Musk, an extremely powerful person, and Brazil's Supreme Court (in particular, de Moraes, but not just him). This legal conflict is playing out in a bunch of ways, not only via the blocking of Twitter, but also via the investigation into Musk, the involvement of Starlink, and Musk's efforts to publish sealed court documents (both directly, via the Alexandre Files dedicated Twitter account, and by involving Republican politicians). I don't know what title would best capture this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  The blocking is the topic's central point. ArionStar (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's how it's written right now. We'll have to see how the various elements of the conflict and the page develop over time. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Blocking of Twitter in Brazil" or "Block of Twitter in Brazil" for consistency per the examples of Alex.

―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support; agreed that the block seems central. Oeoi (talk)

• Oppose, I feel many are jumping the gun here. Until it's legally established that the block is permanent, there no reason to rename the article. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, "Twitter" name was used until 2023 and "X" was current name itself. No reason to rename. Zach (talk to me) 11:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  In Brazilian law it is understood that freedom of expression cannot overlap with other rights. The Constitution itself provides that the freedom of one individual cannot harm that of another. Precisely Section X of article 5 of Brazilian Constitution determines the protection of intimacy, privacy, honor and image of people since 1988. That could be a problem. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, for several reasons. This is about the rule of law and the (on-going, mind you) investigation into Elon Musk, not the blocking of Twitter-cum-X as such. Russia, Germany, and Turkey have blocked various platforms, and this article has more "Court" and "investigation" than those five articles in total. So let's await the results of the federal investigation. Musk yeeted Twitter's legal representative, so it may take a while... kencf0618 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for literally any other title. This is not about Elon Musk. This is about Twitter's alleged behavior with respect to Brazil. Blocking of Twitter in Brazil is a fine title, but as written the current title is entirely incorrect.

Ergzay (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Blocking of ___ in Brazil," wait for the result of the RM on Talk: Twitter for whether it should be "Blocking of Twitter" or "Blocking of X." DecafPotato (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: "Investigation" is misleading, as this is not a detective-work type of investigation where someone committed a crime and there is an investigation on who did it. The actions themselves are public knowledge and undisputed, the case is a judicial dispute about those actions being lawful or not. Also, this isn't a case about something else that eventually leads to X being blocked, the whole case is about X. Also, a site block is a site block, it is irrelevant if it is made by a dictatorship or a legal court. Cambalachero (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

improving the background section

I'll preface this by saying that I'm fairly new to trying to understand what's going on with this legal conflict. I think the following from the Washington Post succinctly captures some of the info that would be good to include: "Brazil’s laws do in fact allow for government restrictions on certain kinds of speech. The country became a democracy only in 1985, after decades of authoritarian rule, and its leaders regard that democracy as fragile — especially in the wake of the 2023 insurrection, which was fueled partly via social media. Accordingly, for better or worse, the country is now cracking down on speech it deems a threat to that democracy." Addressing this in the background section would mean including info about what speech restrictions are allowed in Brazil, whether the democracy is indeed seen as "fragile," how the country's history influences what speech is seen as dangerous to the democracy, how the legal limits on speech make Moraes' orders either legally sound or unsound. Some parts of the history to address: the long dictatorship, the subsequent creation of a new constitution, and the 2023 Congress attack carried out by Bolsonaro's supporters. Other background info to include, not addressed by the quote from the Post: Moraes' orders disproportionately affect those on the right. A number of sources argue that Musk is not the "free speech absolutist" that he claims to be, but instead supports speech "for people who share his politics" (quoting disinformation researcher Emerson Brooking), and his politics are increasingly right-wing, so he aligns with Bolsonaro and against Moraes' orders for that reason.

But, because I'm fairly new to this, I'm not sure whether I've accurately captured the background. How do others of you see this? Also, although I feel like I can address some of this well (particularly the part about Musk), I don't feel like I'll be able to write good background text for the part about Brazil's speech restrictions and the role of the country's history in this. So it would mean other people pitching in on writing parts of this background. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

US aid to Brazil

@Torimem, I saw that you asked what foreign aid the US provides to Brazil. It's not a large amount. I'm not sure that it matters what amount it is, given that the claim was only that Musk said it should be halted, which is substantiated by the citation. I don't think it makes sense to add that foreignassistance.gov reference as a citation, since it's not really a citation for that sentence. An alternative is to link the phrase "foreign aid" to the United States foreign aid page, which has a map showing which countries get aid, including Brazil. The table on that page only lists the top 25 recipients, and so doesn't list Brazil / doesn't specify the amount of aid the US provided to Brazil in 2020 (the year for the data in the table). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion,

I meant to specify what aid Musk was referring to. Since you didn't quote him I thought he was referring to a specific one instead of talking in general. Feel free to remove the tag if you want. Torimem (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, pinging again because it didn't work first time! Torimem (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Latuff's cartoon

Carlos Latuff's cartoon on the August 2024 suspension of Twitter in Brazil

The "Reactions" section is illustrated by File:Twitter 29 agosto 2024 - Carlos Latuff.png, a cartoon by Carlos Latuff. The cartoon is clearly biased towards a point of view, and A) It was not published by someone relevant to this event (it's not Moraes or Musk, directly involved, or Lula da Silva, with political clout; it's not even a major newspaper but just a guy uploading drawings to X), and B) it is not relevant in itself to the event (such as a photo of an involved actor talking to the press, the demonstrations, or something like that; in the grand scheme of things nobody cares about Latuff). Needless to say, the neutral point of view applies to all the content of an article, including images. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. An argument could be made for the inclusion of this image in the civil society reaction section though, but we can compare this to, say, including a Ben Garrison cartoon in a political article, which needless to say would definitely be removed or at least generate a discussion. If no one objects to this, the image must be removed. Torimem (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)