Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -202
-1
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
40d
Around the world, governments are threatening & censoring US social media platforms for legal speech. Now, @SecRubio @StateDept says it will deny visas to foreign nationals engaged in censorship against Americans, US tech companies, and people posting from inside the US.
6/27/2025, 7:00:36 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
The president can deny visas to Brazilian government officials and impose Magnitsky Act sanctions.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
Brazil is implementing a radical China-style censorship regime. This a five alarm fire. We need strong action from President @realDonaldTrump and @SecRubio
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
10d
Important analysis from @pfigueiredo08

“People don’t grasp the magnitude of what just happened. The world’s second-largest social media market has just implemented a censorship regime comparable only to China’s.

“Several aspects of this decision are terrifying, but the two

The statement suggests using diplomatic and economic measures against Brazilian officials in response to alleged censorship, engaging in public discourse about international relations and free speech.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement calls for strong action, which could be seen as protective of free speech but may also escalate tensions.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It targets specific individuals, which could be seen as lacking respect for privacy and dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote free speech, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of criticism but could be seen as aggressive rather than constructive. [-1]