[oxmane]

Something I am curious about is why these things (de-platforming of websites for example) are so US-centric.

What I'm wondering is whether it is because:

1. Only US-based websites and forums get to that level of extremism that is cause for de-platforming. I find this option the hardest to believe (pretty sure there are hideous things in other countries as well).

2. The infra is mostly US-based (Cloudflare, cloud providers, etc.), they are focused or getting their attention drawn specifically to US-centric topics.

3. It happens in other counties as well, but because HN is US-centric I am hearing about the instances that are dealing with US topics.

And specifically I'm currently focusing on democratic countries, where free speech is upheld in some form (obviously government based censorship is happening in authoritarian countries all the time).

So which is it? Why am I not hearing of these cases happening to EU-based, Canada-based, Australia-based or Israel-based forums/websites (mentioning Israel specifically as I'd expect to hear about those in my local echo-chamber)?

Would love to learn about similar cases from other countries.

[wahnfrieden]

In Facebook's case in relation to genocides they enabled and promoted, they said that their have to prioritize their attention and don't have the resources to give the same level of care to all nations globally. They produced a list of economic powers that they are primarily monitoring. This was in part responsible for unchecked flagrant abuse in countries outside the global north.

[gjvnq]

> 1. Only US-based websites and forums get to that level of extremism that is cause for de-platforming. I find this option the hardest to believe (pretty sure there are hideous things in other countries as well).

Because in places like Brazil racists and bigots can be easily-ish arrested long before they reach that level of extremism. For example, throwing racist insults at another person in Brazil is a literal crime for which you can be arested by anyone.

Also, places like Brazil make website owner legally liable for user content if the website does not comply with court orders.

> 2. The infra is mostly US-based (Cloudflare, cloud providers, etc.), they are focused or getting their attention drawn specifically to US-centric topics.

> 3. It happens in other counties as well, but because HN is US-centric I am hearing about the instances that are dealing with US topics.

I think that's partially true. However, the big issue is that the US has an absurd view of free speech that doesn't line with anyone else and as such the US hasn't really ratified the ICCPR nor does the US enforce foriegn court orders on matters related to free speech (see the SPEECH act). So anytime anything bad happens anywhere in the world people are forced to go to the media instead of the US government for help.

> Would love to learn about similar cases from other countries.

In Brazil, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the arrest of congressman Daniel Silveira for his antidemocratic activities. Because congresspeople can only be arested _in flagrante delicto_, that justice came up with the novel legal theory that everytime a person watches a video you posted it's like if you were speaking the same words again and thus if there's any crime there, you can be arrested at any time so long as the video is still up.

I'm of course simplyfing. Daniel Silveira, if I recall correctly, was involved in groups making physical threats against the Supreme Court Justices among other stuff.

Some useful sources: (in Portuguese)

https://www.conjur.com.br/2021-fev-17/especialistas-defendem...

https://www.camara.leg.br/noticias/729294-camara-decide-mant...

https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2022/04/29/alexandre-d...

https://www.conjur.com.br/2022-jun-22/bloqueio-paginas-pco-g...

https://www.conjur.com.br/2022-set-06/tre-rj-nega-registro-c... (that congressman was barred from running for relection)

https://veja.abril.com.br/politica/deputado-do-psl-ameaca-st... (he said he would volunteer to physically/militarily attack the court)