I read its characters got woke designs and it cast a bad reputation on the game, like it was a game made for DEI pandering.

But that's just part of it. I guess it's the Live Service Gaming fatigue, and this game didn't bring anything new to the table to set it apart from Overwatch.

In other words: the judge issued an order that affects everyone, not only the parties involved in the judicial process, and without the need for each affected individual to be formally notified so he/she can know how to avoid being fined. So, he basically legislated by himself. No wonder people are saying he's a dictator.

Before Elon acquired Twitter, the platform enforced an one-sided policy of censoring right-wing points of view. It even started actively shielding the left from any criticism, such as when the Hunter Biden Laptop story was blatantly censored so as to not affect Joe Biden's presidential campaign negatively.

Now, he lets both sites participate in the debate without censorship. Are you trying to say things got worse because of this?

Actually, Bolsonaro is a fraud. He only acts in the self-interest of himself and his immediate family members. As he's being threatened by the dictator, with some speculation that he could be arrested at any time, he's keeping silent during this whole X blocking incident so he doesn't suffer retaliation from the dictator.

As for Musk, I know that, like every businessman, he has his financial interests. I surely would if I were one, and I would not blame anyone for doing the same, as nobody gets rich spending money unwisely. However, I can recognize that his passion for free speech is genuine; otherwise, he wouldn't have bought Twitter for $44 billion. Under the most reasonable analysis, this was a bad deal in terms of return on investment. Maybe it'll bear fruit in the long term, but it's a big, nebulous maybe. So as he decided to buy it anyway, he surely did so on principle, not for money.

If the solution is as simple as downloading a VPN app from the smartphone app store and clicking "activate VPN," I wouldn't consider it tech-savvy territory. In the past, VPNs were indeed esoteric tech for nerds, but nowadays they're commoditized stuff. And if Brazil's regime keeps getting more repressive under the dictator, with the blocking of more social media sites, more people will have the opportunity/necessity to learn about VPNs.

Free VPNs don't cost money. And times have changed: there are some reputable free VPNs, like ProtonVPN and Cloudflare's WARP.

When a X user finds himself unable to load X's main page or the app, he will be motivated to investagate why, and finally he'll find out VPNs are the solution. X's brazilian users were already discussing and suggesting VPNs to each other on the days leading up to the block. And the block is not 100% yet: smaller ISPs are taking longer to set up the block.

ISPs shall block, X users shall use VPN to circumvent.

Are we seeing the same thing? I've never seen as much activity from Brazilian users on X as now.

I guess all this block did was teach the Brazilian population how to use VPNs. And most are just ignoring the threat of a US$ 8.900,00 daily fine from the dictator because, by its very nature, VPNs keep them anonymous. X is on bad terms with the dictator, so it will not expose anyone's IP addresses even if requested by him. None of the major VPN companies are based in Brazil, and it would be hard to ask them for IP addresses too.

Even some major news outlets are still posting on X, saying that they're posting through "international staff members." Some politicians and notable personalities are starting to use the same excuse: "someone out of the country is posting for me." This block is looking pretty ineffective, and it's serving as an educational incentive for people to start using VPNs. If any more social media platforms are also blocked, people are already well prepared to circumvent the blocks.

So, what has the dictator gained from this temper tantrum? He forced X out of the country, leaving no local offices to receive his orders, even the reasonable ones like those related to normal (non-political persecution) crimes. And he strengthened the protests that were already scheduled for September 7th (Brazil Independence Day), which will turn into an event mainly asking for his impeachment.

No minimally serious country destroys the legal separation between different companies so brazenly. If it is for such a thing to happen, it's only on exceptional circunstances, and only after the a full lawsuit concludes its natural course, giving all affected parties the right to offer their defenses. Anything far from these basic civilizational principles is no more than a whim from a dictator's inflated ego.

There are legal ways for the judicial system to recover assets. Going after other companies, even if Musk has 40% stake on Starlink, is madness. One thing does not justify the other.

Fighting crime is desirable, but within the limits of the law:

Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework

Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the internet application provider may only be held civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, it fails to take steps to, within the scope and technical limits of its service and within the specified timeframe, make the content identified as infringing unavailable, except for legal provisions to the contrary.

§ 1º The court order referred to in the caput must contain, under penalty of nullity, clear and specific identification of the content identified as infringing, which allows the unequivocal location of the material.

Note that the legislator took the trouble to say right at the beginning that the intention is to prevent censorship. Few laws are written in such detail as to reinforce their guiding principles in the middle of the provisions. If the legislator went to this trouble, it is because the intention of avoiding censorship is fundamental to this law. If judges are ignoring the law, they're ignoring the will of the people.

This freeze of Starlink's financial assets is so absurd, that even Brazilian Speaker of the House (a big son of a bitch himself) criticized it. He made a comparison to another recent national scandal about retailer Americanas defrauding it's accounting to hide the fact it is in deep debt. Its owner fled to Europe to avoid persecution. Under the same argument, they'd be authorized to freeze Ambev's (beverage company which is partially owned by Americanas' owner) assets to cover for Americanas' debt.

The insane judge that ordered the asset freeze is so blinded by his vendetta against Elon Musk that he does dumb shit like this, which is putting a big stain on Brazil credibility to foreign investors. If a single insane judge can do this on his whim, who would want to invest in Brazil?

Here in Brazil we have a judge that concentrates the powers of: judge, prosecutor, victim, legislator, chief of Federal Police. And he wasn't elected by the people. Are we still really a democracy? Are we so different from countries like Russia?

The Brazilian Internet Law (Marco Civil da Internet) says that the content to be removed via judicial intervention must be specified. It does not allow the blocking of entire accounts from a social media platform. In fact, Brazilian Constitution forbids this kind of censorship (Censura Prévia). The decision to block X nationwide is based on a series of decisions that blatantly violate Brazilian Law.

By the way, the dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered Starlink's asset freeze before Starlink wouldn't comply with X blocking.

I thought our society had moved beyond viewing the world in such a dogmatic way. It's like you're saying, "Agree with me, or you're a heathen!"

Your own link states that "in part" definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.

By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide "in part" (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a "group" is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria.

If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization (it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess...), and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population, could it really still be labeled as genocide? As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide "in part," so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.

It's arguable whether there's a genocide taking place. If Israel really wanted to eliminate everyone—civilians and Hamas alike—they'd have already done so, and from an operational point of view, it would be much easier and take less effort than targeted attacks. Using the word 'genocide' so easily really takes away the weight of the term unnecessarily. When a real genocide does occur somewhere in the world, everyone will be less attentive to it.

Good point! Unless they have competitors, it's strange when they advertise at all.

I just don't understand the insistence on targeting the woke demographic instead of core gamers. They've repeatedly shown that they are masters in the complaining department, but when it comes to buying diversity-infused games, they are a no-show.