This is a very complicated issue, because enabling some censorship is harmful in itself.

“Countries” do not want censorship. Corrupt bureaucrats in power do.

Essentially corrupt bureaucrats are the countries. They might have to occasionally follow whims of elected representatives, which the populous is forced to vote and select from small pool.

I think putting it that way could lead someone to believe a country’s population agrees with the actions of the managerial elite. But yes, I agree with the essence of the idea, though I think it’s clearer to say they own or run the country.

No, they're not. These judges do not represent me. I did not vote for them at all. Actually not a single person did.

They are. Brazil isn't a democracy. There is a non-elected elite with absolute power. They can indict, investigate, prosecute and condemn anyone at their whim. Elected representatives aren't immune (e.g. Deltan Dallagnol, Sergio Moro). They can nullify and change laws made by elected representatives. They can create new laws out of thin air. They can uncondemn criminals.

I know, and I agree. I just consider it completely illegitimate. If anyone attempted a coup in Brazil, it was the supreme court. Looks like they succeeded too, unlike Bolsonaro and his clumsy flirtations with the topic.

Yes and Bolsonaro flirtations are theatrical. He and his sons are always the firsts to dose water on the fire when things get close to reaching a critical mass. They sabotaged the opening of a parliamentary investigation of the supreme court (CPI da Lava-Toga).

e.g. https://youtu.be/jivOclOWSVY?si=TRiw6yBaTYRh94n9&t=84

To foreigners: you don't understand how powerful the Brazilian supreme court is and how flawed our short-lived constitution is. Due to "foro privilegiado" they are the ones who judge politicians for their crimes and ensure that only the few who fell out of favor get condemned. As pretty much every politician is involved in some sort of wrongdoing, the supreme court pretty much owns everybody. Bolsonaro is no exception and his anti-democratic show is the only thing providing a simulacrum of legitimacy to the authoritarian acts of the supreme court.

> He and his sons are always the firsts to dose water on the fire when things get close to reaching a critical mass.

That's why I no longer have any respect for him at all. He's a coward with no balls, no convictions and no vision. It's hilarious to me how he's being treated like some ruthless dictator. If only he had been one. He's being treated like Hitler anyway, might as well have tried it just to see what happens. Too cowardly to even do that.

For my money, I think the way this works out is that the idea of global social media conglomerates also falls apart. I think instead of subsidiaries of mostly US companies, governments will prefer to have the social media platform and its officers entirely subject to their jurisdiction with no option of leaving, or have it directly operated by the state, or not have it at all.

> Do we need to rethink the idea of global social media platforms? Maybe even the idea of a global internet.

Yes.

> If countries like Brazil or India want to have everything censored

They aren't even the worst. The biggest advocates of censorship on american social media is europe, canada, israel, etc.

> create some subsidiary application solely for people within each of those countries

Or maybe brazil or india should outright ban these platforms and create their own? These countries have their own national tv stations, newspapers, etc? Why don't they have their own twitter, facebook, etc?

If media essentially controls who you vote for, shouldn't india, brazil and every democracy control their own media? Seems to me that a foreign nation controlling so much of your social media is a direct threat to your democracy.

Besides, if we continue on this path of global social media, we would have to censor everything everyone finds offensive. It would be the tyranny of the offended. The worst kind of tyranny.

> They aren't even the worst. The biggest advocates of censorship on american social media is europe, canada, israel, etc.

any sources on this ? and for most things you are mentioning in your post ?

You're replying to a throwaway troll account. You won't get any sources.

Because most state controlled/sponsored media are filled with incompetency, hugely impopular and prone to follow the official narrative.

The idea of fragmenting the Internet into country level information silos controlled by each state is authoritarian and stupid.

It is a good thing to be able to talk to anyone regardless of border, to be able to express yourself freely, to have open access information.

I could see setup where there is local wholly independent companies that simply buy IP from some original company, maybe federate allowed content. These would then live on their own domains and be fully controlled by states they are in.

The US has pressured the rest of the world to censor anything it considers to be copyright infringement and enforce its draconian domestic copyright laws.