[ceejayoz]

Where in this article does the Washington Post take an organizational stance on the block?

[ripjaygn]

Cherry picking anecdotes.

There's a lot of people missing X as evidenced in this article https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazilian-judge-suspends-x-platfo...

[ceejayoz]

That article does the exact same thing.

The WaPo article at least cites some actual stats:

> In 2022, only 3 percent of Brazilians cited the social network as their preferred location to consume political news, the area in which Twitter was once strongest, according to a survey by the Institute for Democracy and Democratization of Communication.

[ripjaygn]

> That article does the exact same thing.

So you agree the WaPo article is crap? Because it uses anecdotes to prove a negative, while the article I linked disproves the WaPo by showing that some Brazilians do care. You can't prove a negative with anecdotes but you can prove a positive.

[ceejayoz]

> So you agree the WaPo article is crap?

No, I'd suggest reading the next line of my comment. It "at least cites some actual stats" rather than quoting Cardi B and the admins of a Timothy Chalamet fan page.

[ripjaygn]

No, I'd suggest reading the next line of my comment. You cannot prove a negative with incomplete stats.

3% of Brazilian population is still 6.45 million people who primarily use X for news. There are 23 million X users in Brazil. That's a lot of people.

[ceejayoz]

That's an intentionally silly reading of the WaPo article's title, contents, and implications. They're fairly obviously not making the claim that zero Brazilians care. They're making the supported claim that Twitter's seen a decline in Brazil in recent years and is probably going to just shift over to other platforms, as we've already seen to some extent.

[surgical_fire]

> 6.45 million people who primarily use X for news.

It's like 6.45 million people primarily using a mix of styrofoam and lead as basis for a healthy diet