Michael Schellenberger

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score -8
8/4/2025, 4:03:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
A “shameful stain on the Supreme Court”

Ademir Domingos Pinto da Silva, a 54-year-old street vendor from southern Brazil, wasn’t even present at the January 8 riots. He arrived later that night at the military camp in Brasília to sell flags and T-shirts. Police blocked him from
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
“I can go into full detail, but it won’t meet the speed you all need.”

Errors were common. A woman named Vildete was mistakenly flagged as “positive.” Minutes later, the team realized they had confused her with someone else and changed her label to “negative.”

Moraes’ demand
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
“Enforcing the Constitution is not a coup.”

Adenilson Demetrio de Cordova received a “positive” label because of a single post found on X. It linked to a petition titled “Manifesto to the Brazilian Nation – In Defense of Liberty,” published months before the 2022 election by a
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
“So, according to Egghead, nobody can question anything?”

In one case, the task force flagged a truck driver, Claudiomiro da Rosa Soares, for a series of Facebook posts that criticized Lula and questioned the 2022 election. Accused of “violent attempt against the democratic
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
ANALYSIS:

Our team analyzed the spreadsheets used by the task force to classify detainees. According to the STF’s records, 1,398 reports were issued. Of the 319 people classified with 69 reports we were able to access, 42 people were tagged as “positive” and 277 as “negative.”
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
31d
HOW IT WORKED:

Kusahara, relaying orders from Moraes, ran the group with authoritarian rigor, demanding speed and volume.

STF & TSE officials participated, incluindo Eduardo Tagliaferro, head of the TSE’s anti-disinformation unit.

The task force followed a three step process:

The statement and accompanying images discuss the urgency and pressure within a judicial process, highlighting potential overreach and errors in handling cases. The tone is critical of the speed and methods employed, suggesting a lack of due process and potential harm to individuals wrongly classified. The discourse touches on public concerns about justice, transparency, and accountability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement suggests potential harm due to rushed judicial processes, violating the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    There is a concern for privacy and dignity, as individuals are misclassified, potentially violating this principle. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of the issues within the judicial process, aligning with this principle. [+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 constructive criticism of the judicial process, aligning with this principle. [+1]