403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
Rumble disables access for Brazilian users
(MENAFN) Video sharing service Rumble made headlines on Friday as CEO Chris Pavlovski announced a bold move to disable access for all users in Brazil. This decision comes in response to a court order compelling Rumble to censor specific creators in the country, a move that directly contradicts the platform's mission to uphold a free and open internet.
Pavlovski shared the company's stance on X (formerly Twitter), asserting that Rumble believes users with diverse and unpopular views should have equal access to their platform. In an effort to challenge the legality of the Brazilian courts' demands, Rumble has chosen to suspend access for users in Brazil temporarily. Pavlovski expressed hope that the court would reconsider its decision, allowing the service to be restored promptly.
Blaming the Brazilian courts for the disruption in service, Pavlovski emphasized that the move was necessary to protect the platform's commitment to free speech and the values it stands for. He underscored that Rumble is unique in its scale as a company that staunchly defends free speech and American values, expressing a desire for other major tech companies to follow suit in the future.
This isn't the first time Rumble has taken such a stand. In November 2022, the platform faced a similar situation when Pavlovski refused to comply with France's orders to censor certain Russian-language outlets. At that time, he cited the company's dedication to free speech as the driving force behind defying the censorship demands.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who hosts the 'System Update' show on Rumble and resides in Brazil, weighed in on the situation, accusing the Brazilian Supreme Court of being consumed with censoring political speech. Greenwald highlighted previous instances where platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp were banned for not immediately complying with censorship orders.
As Rumble navigates this legal battle in Brazil, the platform's decision to disable access stands as a testament to its unwavering commitment to free speech and the protection of diverse voices on its platform. The case raises broader questions about the intersection of technology, free speech, and government censorship in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.
Pavlovski shared the company's stance on X (formerly Twitter), asserting that Rumble believes users with diverse and unpopular views should have equal access to their platform. In an effort to challenge the legality of the Brazilian courts' demands, Rumble has chosen to suspend access for users in Brazil temporarily. Pavlovski expressed hope that the court would reconsider its decision, allowing the service to be restored promptly.
Blaming the Brazilian courts for the disruption in service, Pavlovski emphasized that the move was necessary to protect the platform's commitment to free speech and the values it stands for. He underscored that Rumble is unique in its scale as a company that staunchly defends free speech and American values, expressing a desire for other major tech companies to follow suit in the future.
This isn't the first time Rumble has taken such a stand. In November 2022, the platform faced a similar situation when Pavlovski refused to comply with France's orders to censor certain Russian-language outlets. At that time, he cited the company's dedication to free speech as the driving force behind defying the censorship demands.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who hosts the 'System Update' show on Rumble and resides in Brazil, weighed in on the situation, accusing the Brazilian Supreme Court of being consumed with censoring political speech. Greenwald highlighted previous instances where platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp were banned for not immediately complying with censorship orders.
As Rumble navigates this legal battle in Brazil, the platform's decision to disable access stands as a testament to its unwavering commitment to free speech and the protection of diverse voices on its platform. The case raises broader questions about the intersection of technology, free speech, and government censorship in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Most popular stories
Market Research
More Story
Comments
No comment