this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
258 points (99.2% liked)

World News

39504 readers
1711 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Brazil criticized Meta's decision to end factchecking in the U.S., with Communication Minister Sidonio Palmeira calling it harmful to democracy due to unchecked misinformation.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg plans to replace factchecking with "community notes," sparking global concerns about misinformation.

Brazil's public prosecutor has demanded clarification within 30 days on whether these changes will extend to Brazil.

President Lula emphasized the dangers of disinformation and vowed to combat hate speech, recalling Brazil's strong stance on regulating social media, including past actions against Twitter/X for noncompliance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional

This piece explains more or less how the debacle really isn't about whether it's unconstitutional, but a matter of convenience (so, yeah, a STF façade) - https://www.jota.info/artigos/marco-civil-da-internet-consideracoes-sobre-o-julgamento-da-constitucionalidade-do-art-19

It also explains that the constitution article being used is 5 XXXII, which is about consumer rights

Article 19, the piece being judged unconstitutional, is obviously not so. The problem, from my point of view, is that it needs to add more cases where the host/provider IS liable for content, especially any content which is advertised (that is, the platform gets money to make some content more visible it to more people). But that'd actually be good, and I know not to expect good things from my country, not even as side effect.