WhatsApp is back online in Brazil

Post by neves » Wed, May 04, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

EuAndreh wrote: post #25

antisthenes wrote: post #13

Out of curiosity, what did Brazil use before WhatsApp existed? It seems strange to me that 1 app can capture such an overwhelming majority, because it's just a client, of which there have always been dozens if not hundreds.

IMHO, the biggest selling point of WhatsApp for brazilians is that it works as offline as it is possible. All received data is stored locally. Even if you're offline and send a message, it stores it locally and send it when connection becomes available. Since the majority of WhatsApp users in Brazil have access only to low quality internet connection, this becomes a major issue.

Post by neves » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #21

outworlder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 2 seldom happens. Judges have an extreme amount of power.

Actually judges generally have very little power. For example, they can't enforce any decision they make, they can only make decisions. In a functioning democracy the branches are balanced. In this case it looks like it took too long.

Post by techload » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:13 AM UTC

EuAndreh wrote: post #25

antisthenes wrote: post #13

Out of curiosity, what did Brazil use before WhatsApp existed? It seems strange to me that 1 app can capture such an overwhelming majority, because it's just a client, of which there have always been dozens if not hundreds.

IMHO, the biggest selling point of WhatsApp for brazilians is that it works as offline as it is possible. All received data is stored locally. Even if you're offline and send a message, it stores it locally and send it when connection becomes available. Since the majority of WhatsApp users in Brazil have access only to low quality internet connection, this becomes a major issue.

Post by visarga » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:22 AM UTC

clvx wrote: post #57

guiporto wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it should run its judicial system Yeah, Facebook is a company - not a country. You can't compare apples to oranges. Facebook can do whatever it want and people are free to chose to use it service or not. Brazilians had no choice on this case.

Brazilians can use other apps if they want them too. I don't see your point of freedom to communicate being blocked. You're complaining as tcp/ip would've been blocked and it's not. The point here is Whatsapp is not cooperating with authorities, and surely that's not remotely plausible in a state government. I'm not saying they have to weak encryption or putting backdoors, but a reasonable way to help any government…

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, May 04, 2016, 4:35 AM UTC

neves wrote: post #77

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between "the government of Brazil denying everyone the freedom to communicate the way they want" and "facebook not auto-linking to a competitor's site in a chat program." You're comparing a government making communication through a specific (and popular) channel illegal, and a company not providing a link to a website as they send your message to your recipient. I know Hacker News enjoys ge…

I think it is a fair comparison. Facebook isn't for free expression, they are for their business. The Brazilian Gov can be questioned in the Justice System, but doing so against "Freedom". Facebook dubious position about the right to be informed and the desire to control the information we access is a greater menace to freedom of expression than any ignorant Brazilian lower judge.