- 112comments
- 30comments
- 246comments
- 10comments
- 80comments
- 226comments
- 81comments
- 82comments
- 22comments
- 29comments
- 26comments
- 23comments
- 4comments
- 50comments
- 635comments
- 102comments
- 101comments
- 41comments
- 11comments
- —discuss
- 181comments
- 31comments
- 38comments
- 270comments
- —discuss
- 57comments
- 75comments
- 12comments
- 2comments
- 20comments
are they even allowed to do that, damn
Trump approves this message
"your account violates our terms of use, if you think that is not the case tell us why not"
Calculated & orchestrated I believe.
They never said "Don't do evil".
Zuck famously said, of his users: "dumb fucks".
Trump is pro Israel. Zuck bends over backwards to get Trump elected.
Lula is against the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Zuck blocks his entire campaign page.
I wonder why?
Trump is friends with Bolsonaro.
Facebook election interference has been going on for a long time in Europe. It's a two-tier system where parties outside the establishment have a far lower ban-threshold.
Isn't it probably an n-tier system which is pay to play?
I would be in favor of blocking ALL political expressions on social media a few weeks before elections.
But this case is something else entirely.
I hope Lula wins and they will ban Facebook for good after the elections. This is an attack on Brazil’s sovereignty.
nothing good usually comes out of governments censoring internet
Facebook is not the internet.
Didn't t Brazil also ban discord screen sharing and camera?
I often use Study Together which is a large discord server (50k users online) for folks to work and study in groups/body doubles, but someone told me a lot of Brazilians have to use VPN to circumvent the ban.
https://www.studytogether.com/discord
If a company openly acts as an enemy of the democratic process, I'm not sure it's the same as censoring a random porn site.
It depends on which side of the "democratic process" benefits the most. It's the eternal debate.
The platform want to be both just neutral platforms and police content. This is ridiculous. Either be liable for the rape threats or don’t interfere at all.
But isn’t this the internet censoring a government?
In this case, the unelected leadership of Facebook is apparently censoring the free speech of a political candidate.
I don't really know anything about Lula (I wouldn't have known this was Brazil if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, I only know from the Wikipedia page 30 seconds ago that their full name is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and "Lula" is a nickname), so I can't say if they're "fine" or "evil", but one does not simply get to disregard the implications of censorship (of anyone, let alone a political party) when it happens to be done by a private corporation.
Especially when it's a foreign private corporation that's already deeply suspicious for political interference in multiple nations, as Meta is.
This is not censoring "the Internet". Meta and Facebook are a private company incorporated in a foreign country.
They don't have to censor the internet. They just have to make it illegal for their citizens to do business with Meta.
Yeah, you don’t know what sovereignty means.
Brazil can very easily block FB from operating there, but FB is a private American company and it can do what it wants on its own platform - it can allow or disallow any content as it sees fit. If Brazil doesn’t want to deal with this then… ban FB. IP block it. But they won’t, because they like leeching off American manpower and ingenuity with no local alternative (just like the Europeans with their [lack of] homegrown technology).
Europe has many of the same issues (I mean seriously aside from Airbus and ASML wtf even goes on over there in terms of actual technological development), and they should do the same - ban FB/ban twitter/ban Google etc. but they never do lol.
But no it’s not an attack on Brazil’s ‘sovereignty’. Brazil chooses to allow Facebook to operate in its jurisdiction and Facebook chooses what content to disallow. The ball is is Brazil’s court: just ban it.
It’s extremely frustrating because we all know what the American big tech firms are at this point (especially Fb/Meta), and yet the only viable current alternatives seem to be from - hilariously - the Chinese. Absolute shit show all around.
If the American tech firms are so bad and so evil why aren’t you banning them from your country?
I mean … that would have large large costs when the Americans retaliate. I don’t think this is the easy call you claim it is for Europe.
I hate Meta/Facebook with passion and will never use their services. That being said, they can choose to host whatever they want on their property. Your little corporation with a fancy flag and its “sovereignty” isn’t scaring anyone.
If you reach a certain market power it isn’t so easy anymore.
If you become something like public infrastructure you have to act like one or reduce your importance
Do I misunderstand, or are you calling Brazil, the nation whose population is around 214 million, a "little corporation"?
Corporations can host whatever they want and governments can ban them for it.
If giant foreign corporations, American interventions, or just Zuck were sufficiently unpopular in Brazil, then this could help Lula on election day.
Anyone familiar, to comment?
I mean by all means ban Meta everywhere, but this is a Reddit post linking to a substack post that’s a republish of a heavily politicized new source, and fails to mention the page was restored the same day, and also fails the very basic journalist standard of approaching Meta for comment, so I think we can do a little better here?
This would be better, but I guess less anger-tormenting and also you’ll need to translate it yourself: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2026-09/me...