If you're shocked by this, just wait until you find out what the US government has been up to in Central and South America over the past 50 years

I think there's a vast difference between the US government doing something, and private companies doing something like this. I'm not saying the US is right in its interventions, but atleast they're a democratically elected government with some form of legitimacy.

The difference is that we should be able to expect a government to act under higher ethical standards than a for-profit company.

Again: If you're shocked by this, just wait until you find out what the US government has been up to in Central and South America over the past 50 years

I grew up in Brazil. I know what the US has been doing for ages. It's just that, in a more civilized world, I would expect governments to hold themselves to a high ethical standard.

If the US did that, they could be a force for good. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I think the parent is talking about the US sabotaging other governments for decades.

I think that line has been blurred out of existence.

They are not regulating speech in brazil, they are regulating speech on their platform. Bolsonaro can still say whatever he wants in brazil, he just can’t do it on twitter.

Many people look on Twitter first. Brazil could therefore argue Twitter is interfering with government communication in a time of national emergency. That carries a very high penalty in many countries. Besides, this is like the phone company refusing you service because you swore on a call.

I guess the question is: why don't they censor Trump / Pelosi / etc for example?

> I guess the question is: why don't they censor Trump / Pelosi / etc for example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

This is a fair question.

Once upon a time, I was aware of a similar problem on another social network.

The trouble was, a senior elected official in the US was violating the terms and conditions of the site.

The solution: create an exemption for them.

Let's be honest, doing this in Brazil is pretty low-risk for Twitter, doing it in the US could be existential.

That's a bad answer. Double standards are a problem and deserve to be called out. Twitter punches when it thinks someone can't punch back.

Can't it get more whataboutists than just using a link on whataboutism?

I am not trying to be argumentative here but the question stands, treating one and another politician with a different set of parameters is a bit weird.

BTW, I disagree with both of them. I am not trying to defend one or another.

> Is it not a little bit patronising that American companies think they can regulate political speech in Brazil?

I'm sure the President of Brazil can manage to find a way to convey his message other than Twitter. Thus it's not like Bolsonaro was placed under a gag order.

If you want to use a third-party service then you comply with the end user agreement presented by the third party. If you don't agree then that's ok, just get one that you're ok with.

You could make this argument about virtually any censorship.

Censorship is not even remotely comparable to abusing a third-party service to post content that violates it's end user agreement.

You don't agree with the rules? That's ok, just use a service you're ok with.

Do you honestly believe that the President of Brazil lacks the means to brief the citizens of Brazil of his political views and opinions?

We could try the glass half full angle: perhaps it's a baby step towards doing something about life threatening tweets in the US.

> "It's quite clear they don't think they can regulate political speech in the US."

Think again, they DO censor political speech in the US, specifically one side's political speech. This is especially clear for Twitter but also present on many other social media channels.

That's not censorship. That's protecting the public good.