121–130 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "left-wing conservatives" mean?
maybe the same as right-wing liberals, that is, complete nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, WhatsApp is not just refusing to comply - they can't comply, since they don't retain message data. In addition, now that all messages are encrypted end to end, it will be impossible for them to comply in the future.
Well, if they just had responded to the judge order explain that or explaining anything, maybe the judge would consider it. We came to this point because whatsapp do not exist as a company in Brazil and simply ignored the court order. Know they probably considered such orders may happen again and decided to respond to the order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Every business is there for themselves. But laws or rulings blocking access to any business are anti-freedom. It's pretty simple. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons that overcome that. But not with a simple communication channel.
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…
Facebook/WhatsApp is trying to have it both ways. Either it's a for profit private company (and it can do things like that), or it's an important communication medium for a democracy (and access should be open). When it comes to blocking telegram, Facebook/WhatsApp wants to be the provate for profit company. When some judge blocks WhatsApp, suddenly they're an important service for a democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the government, it's the justice. We are a republic. And we have laws. Ignoring a court order is illegal here (and I think it's illegal on most civilized countries). The problem is the company ignoring the orders. All they have to do is explain to the judge why they can't follow that order. And they refuse to do so.
Sounds a lot like the people who said "All Apple has to do is unlock one phone". Again, I'm no expert in Brazil, but I suspect that creating a legal presence in the country (e.g., by answering/defending the claim) gives the government too much leverage.
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…
For an apple to apple comparison, how about last year when Facebook promised to help Germany censor any criticism of their immigration policy under the guise of 'stopping Hate Speech'? Facebook aren't taking a stance against censorship here. They are taking the same stance they always did: Pro-Facebook.
> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy Says the person (in name of the company, I assume) whose company blocks things they don't "like", such as messages containing telegram.org or telegram.me[1]. Now 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 s…
That's fucking dodgy/unacceptable. I know they did this for another site that gave money to people for spamming their connections with links to their website, which I guess is borderline acceptable. In the case of telegram though, there is no redeeming circumstance of any kind, they're just censoring for a business advantage [without it being directly visible to the user, which is even worse], and that's just really…
Classifying a recipient receiving a message containing exactly what the sender sent as 'censorship' just because they don't auto-link it is taking the word to new heights of rhetorical meaninglessness. Dodgy and scummy, sure. Mildly inconvenient for the recipient, definitely. Censorship, no.
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…
Facebook does much more then that... they also hide information by using their "smart" sorting algo of stories/posts, for example.