Lula supporters protest against Meta to denounce its 'electoral interference'

lifeisloving

People should look up the North American Technate, because we're living in it. Its been a mission of techno-fascist for a couple decades, they're finally succeeding. They will get rid of democracy altogether (they may have already, they can basically do mind control with recommendations algorithms and get swaths of people to do whatever they want).

nielsbot

Meta has interfered with elections before, we know the Trump admin wants Bolsonaro Jr in power, and the US establishment has supported anti-socialism in Brazil in the past. (The CIA agitated against Lula under Reagan, for example) Is it overly conspiratorial to think the Meta is doing what they're accused of on behalf of the US?

kbbgl87

Nao Se Meta, that's clever

adlotsof

I am quite sure meta does support the german AfD. Rage causes engagement. AfD (and Trump and Orban and le Pen) communicate in such emotional ways that algorithms prefer them. Facebook does not care about truth, it cares about active users

lp4v4n

Interference with an election is so in line with the current president's character that nobody has any reason to think otherwise. The political atmosphere in the USA, and worldwide let's be honest, has become so cynical that people aligned with the American president don't really see any issue with doing morally wrong things or downright illegal acts if that means a political victory for them.

__rito__

Meta (Instagram) certainly pushes one side in India. I am sure of it. I didn't quite believe its involvement with things in Myanmar where media, people vowed left and right of Meta's involvement. But seeing it now firsthand, I certainly believe it. - Accounts, posts from one cabal being pushed to your feed even if you don't follow any of them. - If you open a fresh account, the accounts from those cabal are recommended at top. - Relentlessly showing posts from one side and promoting them like hell. Suspected bot activities. There were posts that are sans merit clearly, but Insta pushed it and had the unvelievable amount of likes, like Messi would have, had he posted his wedding reels. I don't have publishable evidence, but I ask you to trust me. Human to human. I read newspapers, I don't trust megaliked reels. But most don't nowaday, and I saw real people fall to blatant lies and propaganda. It's real. You can say anything, but I am convinced fully.

ricardobeat

A note on Meta AI was making the rounds the past few days: it will happily generate images featuring the right-wing candidate, logo or party number, while consistently refusing to generate anything related to the opposition Lula/PT/13. They claimed it was a 'technical error'. In September, as the elections geared up, they also suspened Lula's campaign account due to another 'technical error'. There are also thousands of complaints from users having their posts blocked.

olcarl75

this is turning out to be a disaster for the tech communities and powering technology fearmongers because people do not understadn the case here. From what I can see, the meta cutoff data was from a time where one candidate was confirmed and the other wasn't. The political interference here was actually the timely manner for them to fix this. It took weeks of public pressure / federal government pressure for Meta to act.

plandis

It sure is a coincidence that parties in opposition to right wing political movements in different countries keep getting silenced on Meta. It gives the appearance that Meta is not an impartial platform like they try to claim for regulatory purposes.

throwaway27448

They should probably protest with the structural integrity pf their nearest courthouse or prison

draxen

Surprisingly the Brazilian left has embraced post-Musk Twitter instead of starting their own sovereign alternative platform. One problem the Brazilian left is facing is that the non-Musk platforms are not too fond of death threats against Protestants, landlords, farmers etc.

smallerfish

Even though I've shilled the book before, it's an opportune thread to repeat the recommendation: if you haven't, read Careless People. For much of her career at Facebook, the author worked for Joel Kaplan, who was VP of Global Public Policy and is now Chief Global Affairs Officer. She's not particularly complimentary.

silverFork

Americans don't like any entity to interfere in their elections but the reality is that their corporations are knee deep in interference in other countries never mind what they themselves call the deep state! Does anyone remember Cambridge Analytica activity on Facebook during US elections in 2016.. Look it up if you don't remember. The same entity was also active in South America aka Colombia, Brazil, Argentina.. Cambridge Analytica was never charged and Facebook was never charged because it was all made legal. After the revelations, some laws changed but has it really changed. Is it stopping American interference in other countries? it doesn't look like it. What about at home? You know better than I do if you have an account; I don't.

lift2027

When has the US not interfere in other countries' elections, especially those taking place in its "backyard"? Nothing is off limits. Everything comes from the CIA playbook: bribes, threats, assassinations, social media trolling, censorship, etc. Of course, these days, interference is no longer limited to international affairs but has fully entered the domestic arena. Trump's top donors have already contributed billions to the midterm elections, but it may not be enough to sway voters. This coming midterm election, brace for the unexpected.

theflyingpigeon

What a bunch of crying babies. Plus, my entire feed is full of pro-Lula garbage Either most of my friends are pro-Lula (they are not) or Meta is helping them, not Bolsonaro. This is an excuse for them to challenge the election if they (hopefully) lose. For my other Brazilian friends over here: to me both sides are terrible but Lula is the convicted felon that spent 2 years in prison, and he ruled the country since 2003 and the place gets worse by the day.

theflyingpigeon

It’s funny because most people on the right will say Meta is helping the left lol

gsky

I hate the big tech so much. I stopped even talking to friends who use it. USA big tech is just as bad as Russias or China's

neves

There's probably some Meta employees reading this. You probably are decent people, with a nice family, good to your friends, ethical citizens and aren't directly involved in this psyops conspiracy. But you will be responsible for a lot of suffering. The Amazon will be devastated. A lot of people will get poorer. Violence will spread. Autocracy will win. Few people will get richer. I don't know how you can sleep at night.

alcaide-mor

Of course big and influential media companies favour one side over the other. That's been happening long before the internet. It's called propaganda and has been the practice of traditional newspapers, radio stations and television networks since the beginning of their existence. And that will continue being the practice. Now the questions are: how much does it matter? can/should we try to control it? what are the proposals for that? how to enforce it fairly for every political group? --- note the current government (the one complaining about Meta favouring the opposition) also has its own propaganda network favouring itself against the opposition.

rayiner

Brazil’s law requires Meta to take down certain posts by politicians. How does such a law not inevitably lead to the loser of the election complaining about “interference.” Everyone really need to go back and read the work of America’s founding generation. The founders understood the importance of structural and procedural rules versus substantive rules. A structural rule is some thing like: no politician can use Facebook, or alternatively, Facebook isn’t allowed to censor any candidate for political office. Such rules can be implemented with little room for debate. A substantive rule by contrast requires some person to make a substantive judgment about particular content. Such rules turn that decision maker into a gatekeeper. And as a practical matter, nobody trusts such decision makers to render impartial decisions. This is why, in the U.S., judges largely police procedure and legal instructions, while substantive decisions about guilt or liability are made by randomly selected juries. In the U.S., a highly educated federal judge isn’t even trusted to decide guilt for a misdemeanor that could put a single individual in prison for more than six months. Meanwhile other countries trust random people at companies to make decisions that could swing entire elections and affect millions of people. It’s lunacy.