141–150 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Then don’t operate in the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech has always been a violation of Facebook's ToS. The "deal" with Germany was simply that Facebook agreed to be better at actually enforcing their own terms.
You ignored the actual argument, that political policy was being falsely labeled as hate speech. I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what you need to address if you want to discuss the nature of the deal.
Of course it's not, it's an absurd claim. There's a very clear distinction between political argument and, well, this:
http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-founder-lutz-bachmann-found-guil...
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.
That is literally the opposite of what Zuck, the founder and CEO of Facebook said in this article: "the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
WhatsApp have testified about this before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes. There's no chance the judge isn't aware of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't it be e2e encryption with WhatsApp keeping a copy of the private keys? or does e2e enc implicitly means the private keys are never exchanged?
WhatsApp wouldn't keep the private keys. That being said, this system could still be hacked - when the clients exchange public keys, you insert yourself in the middle, provide your own public keys to each client, and mediate between the two clients, which gives you access to the unencrypted messages.
If they pin then the NSA would have to actually have access to the data center and doing that much without getting noticed is quite hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
WhatsApp have testified about this before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes. There's no chance the judge isn't aware of it.
You cannot respond to a judge order by giving interviews on newspapers or by a blog post or even with a testimony in a legislative hearing.
You need to ask your lawyer to answer the judge request, on paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You ignored the actual argument, that political policy was being falsely labeled as hate speech. I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what you need to address if you want to discuss the nature of the deal.
> I have no idea if it's true or not Of course it's not, it's an absurd claim. There's a very clear distinction between political argument and, well, this: http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-founder-lutz-bachmann-found-guil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't you sort news by "newest first" then?
Either this options has become very well hidden, either it has totally disapeared. Either way, I cannot find it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark Zuckerberg "urged" Brazilians to tell Congress to "ban bans of online services" in the name of democracy. Am I an irrational nationalist for believing he shouldn't get into the politics of any country (especially outside of the US)? Last time someone tried to help us (Brazilians), we got a military dictatorship.
Oh but this isn't even the first time. See this: http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/5/9099897/facebook-india-inte... Facebook put up a banner for Indian users to try to influence the passing of a law to allow Facebook to break net neutrality in India. Acts like these aren't limited to communications companies though. American multinationals have a tendency to exploit poor underdeveloped countries, like Papua New Guinea,…
See: https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/679093130080161792 (notice the checkmark that's checked by default).
In my opinion, they managed to accomplish exactly what they wanted to with this campaign: make the whole online call for discussion by the India's regulatory authority meaningless.
> 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…
Mark Zuckerberg "urged" Brazilians to tell Congress to "ban bans of online services" in the name of democracy. Am I an irrational nationalist for believing he shouldn't get into the politics of any country (especially outside of the US)? Last time someone tried to help us (Brazilians), we got a military dictatorship.
They'd better not relate themselves with our Congress, but it's for their own good, not our :)