World

Elon Musk and the Digital Hill Owners

Elon Musk

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.| Photo: ALEXANDER BECHER/ EFE

Law did not arise within a State where everyone was a citizen. The Roman paterfamilias

was the arbiter and lord of the his house, which included his servants, his wife and his own children. He was a kind of monarch within his estate and, outside of it, a citizen subject to the authority of the Republic or the Empire. Brazil inherited some of that, whether in customs or legislation.

Where private power reigns, the state does not bole. And to have a good idea of ​​what the Brazilian interior was like, let’s note that in the Second Reign there was no map of the Brazilian Semiarid Region, although this is a region occupied by Lusophones since at least the 17th century. The maps were commissioned by D. Pedro II from the polymath Theodoro Sampaio, and would be of great value to the Republic in defeating Canudos. If the State did not even know the paths of the semiarid thickets, there is an idea of ​​the power that a colonel was used to exercising on his private property.

At least until the 20th century, modernization was understood to imply the growth of the State over these private enclaves. With the universalization of citizenship, the colonel and his illiterate sugarcane cutter are equal before the State. Both are under state authority, and the colonel is not free to flog him in a log or sell him.

However, modernization made the exercise of private power over theoretically free citizens reach the cities. In addition to the rural figure of the colonel, the urban figure of the owner of the hill was added. But still politicians and intellectuals will say that such a state of affairs is not ideal. And, as much as there is a bandidolatry on the part of the intellectuals, a lot of ink has already flown to deal with the “Parallel State”. The apology of trafficking is somewhat shameful and disguised. The way to increase trafficking is to lower the legitimate State, saying it is racist, etc., without saying a word about the atrocities of trafficking. As for its funding, neither expect a campaign to raise awareness of the human cost of illicit drug use: it is easier to worry about whales than favelados. There is a campaign to stop eating meat and save animals, but stop using drugs, no way!

Therefore, the mobilization of politicians for private entities to exercise their discretionary power over the population should be received with great surprise. And that was exactly what governments had been doing with Big Techs.

Digital Hill Owners

See well: the Brazilian State does not ask colonels and hill owners to create private codes of conduct and apply to Brazilian citizens who enter their territories. Nobody says: “Your Dealer, Allan dos Santos entered your hill and walked freely! Don’t you have a code that punishes hate speech with microwaves? How did you not run it? If he sets foot there one more time and gets away with it, I’ll send the police to take over his hill and put an end to his business!”. But in the Judiciary, in the Legislative and in the academy, many say that Big Techs have to punish those who do this and that.

The Democratic State of Brazil has laws that punish slander, slander and defamation. There is no law focused on this vague thing called “hate speech,” but there are legal limitations on free speech. No one can defend the superiority of a race, for example. Nor can you make apology for crimes. Thus, the Brazilian State should modernize itself to enforce its laws on the internet. As we do not have prior censorship, the internet should only lead to an explosion of slander and defamation crimes, which would overwhelm the Judiciary. Management problem, not the emergence of new crimes.

However, the journalistic corporation had been offering us an artificial common sense according to which Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Pavel Durov (Telegram) had to apply in their respective digital hills a censor code that progressives took from the their heads and that was not sanctioned by any law in Brazil. Now, with the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, things seem to change. The unelected bureaucrat Jen Psaki has already gone public talking about the regulation of social networks in the United States. The European Union, ditto, through one Thierry Breton, another non-elected bureaucrat.

Elon Musk was clear and succinct in his tweet on the matter: “By ‘freedom of speech’ I simply mean what is lawful. I am against censorship that goes beyond the law. If people want less freedom of expression, they will ask the government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, to go beyond the law is to go against the will of the people.” On the fly.

Concern with safeguarding dogmas8013037774001

I can easily find violations of freedom on Twitter of expression that should concern the Brazilian authorities. One of them was covered by the Gazeta: the explicit propaganda of the Comando Vermelho. Shortly after the story, the accounts were deleted. But there were again a lot of Red Command accounts and no one complains. This doesn’t keep the Supreme Court ministers awake at night, or enlightened journalists. Allan dos Santos is really dangerous.

Actually, the curious thing is that everyone knows what the unwritten censorship law is. This became very clear on the first day after the purchase of Twitter: a flurry of tweets with the expression “testing” violated censorship. They tweeted that men are men and women are women, or that ivermectin is good. In short, it became very clear that the dogmas of identity and the “vaccine sect” (to use Guilherme Fiuza’s expression) have become an orthodoxy capable of punishing heretics.

The CEOs were owners of digital hills who acted at the behest of rulers. These rulers who betrayed their people and loved to have intermediary censors. Let’s see now if the European Union and the United States have randolfes to fix the situation.

War of Billionaires

Just like an enlightened citizen of the years 40, we have no way of knowing now what is happening in the world. Given the information available, we can consider that the vague ESG doctrinal body is in tune with the censorship body abolished on Twitter. ESG, an acronym for Environmental and Social Governance, brings together neo-Malthusian identity and environmentalism. By mere observation, we also see that every identity is from the vaccine sect (although not every vaccine faithful is identity), so both things must be connected. And we also know that Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are the main disseminators of ESG around the world.

The ESG is designed to regulate companies and people based on “inclusion” and carbon credit identity rankings. These are criteria that are not clear to anyone – except, perhaps, to Bill Gates. Elon Musk has been posting against him on Twitter, and even leaked a private conversation between the two, with him demanding satisfaction from Bill Gates for investing in Tesla’s downfall. Apparently, Musk’s Tesla, despite producing electric cars (which are advertised as “green energy”) would have a low ESG score, and so Bill Gates was preparing for the company’s devaluation. Musk also took to Twitter to call ESG a “demon incarnate”. In addition, we also discovered that he is against Bill Gates’ neo-Malthusianism, as he regrets the drop in birth rates in the pandemic and thinks that humanity has to evolve to mourn the unborn.

Here comes a big dog fight, and it’s likely that it won’t be until a few years from now that we understand what’s going on now.

Back to top button