[fjkdlsjflkds]

Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.

Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard?

If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.

[Wytwwww]

> Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.

These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.

> both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil

That's still unreasonable.

Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...

Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.

[fjkdlsjflkds]

> These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed).

Sure, but we are not discussing the first amendment, or US law in general. As you must be aware, protection of freedom of expression rights are different in different jurisdictions.

> Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.

I would not be so sure. For example, it is not legal to display a swastika in Germany (even though Germany is usually considered a democratic rule-of-law country), even though it might be legal to do so in the US.

> That's still unreasonable.

Just stating this (without any further argumentation) doesn't make it so. My only point is that, apparently, there is legal precedence for such kinds of things (i.e., banning a certain social network when it refuses to appoint a legal representative in Brazil).

> Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...

I'm not dodging anything... that is a different issue, that we can further discuss, if you want to have a discussion in good faith. Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts, though.

> Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people [...].

Ad hominem argumentation is not the best approach to argumentation, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion in good faith.