> Official candidates are not suspended, and their content will remain available on their profiles.

Sounds good to me. Filtering all recommendations is fair, and they are not censoring the profiles.

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in elections more generally, wouldn't filtering all candidates equally simply favor incumbents?

▲

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Brazilian electoral law tries to ensure all candidates have equitable access to media air time prior to the election. This filtering apparently exists to prevent distortions like X itself pushing candidates.

	▲	marcosdumay 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> equitable Proportionally to their incumbency. Some company distorting the reach is way worse than favoring the incumbents. But the access is not even supposed to be equitable.
	▲	jfoster 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.

▲

gpm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Eh, I think it'd favour whoever has the bigger media apparatus running other accounts supporting them... which also seems like a weird decision.