Brazilian here. I sincerely dislike those who were blocked, but don't be fooled, what the Supreme Court is doing here is completely dictatorial.
Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
171–180 of 258 posts
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. You cannot expect the judicial to be apolitical if it is appointed by the other two highly political branches of government. But we pretend it is apolitical in Brazil and in the US.
There is a difference between political philosophy and being political. A judge may be liberal or conservative but it doesn’t follow that they would represent a party platform.
Part of the point of the current US vetting process is to ensure judges have the same beliefs as the current party platform. Even if you put the political philosophy of judges on some sort of pedestal (which you probably shouldn't) they don't get appointed unless they have the "correct" politics.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would do anything for Facebook to leave mine. If this is a step in that direction, I'm all for it.
To be immediately replaced by a local imitation founded by a politically-connected mogul. But at least it'll be local.
I don't see how that's any worse than the politically-connected mogul from a foreign country we have now.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. I couldn't care less about what said accounts were posting if they were protected by the 1st amendment. The problem here is the precedence of an overreach.
> The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. It really isn't. ISPs are also required to cut access to illegal content. Facebook is a service provider that willingly provides access to illegal content, thus it is required to take it down. That's the whole point of the ruling.
Not sure I follow the logic.
The content is illegal in Brazil only for now.
The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#175I am glad that Brazil's court still remains independent. Looks like Bolsonaro, should borrow couple of tips from his friend Narendra Modi. Modi, dismantled the institutions in India systematically to guarantee his long lasting power. e.g. The only official from the election commission who didn't give a clean-chit to Modi for his election campaign violations during last election was greeted with Income Tax raids on hi…
Add Duterte to that list. He appointed 11 out of 15 justices to the Philippine Supreme Court.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#176Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated. What should be prohibited to be said, if anything? Who draws the line?
Careful, that's how RMS got canceled.
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia,"[129][130] Stallman wrote that those "should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness,"
I'm sorry, this is not a bad example of 'cancel culture'.
It's funny because this is the argument that sometimes anti free speech people put forth because they believe that 'free speechers' are just protecting truly bad people.
Harvey Weinstein was cancelled because he was very bad, for example. This is fine.
Stallman cancelled himself here, or at least, if you're going to support pedophellia and kiddie porn, then, well, you have to live in a small bubble.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you find slander to not fit the bill? But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? Go sue the actual speaker, and keep collecting damages from them as long as they keep using the platform to publish the slander. > And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit? A military coup pretty obviously falls under a non-speech act which is itself illegal.
> But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? The platform is the medium that's enabling slander. If Bolsonaro's minions were publishing their fake news and slanderous attacks on newspapers, the newspaper would also be held accountable for it's responsibility of wilfully spreading false information. > Go sue the actual speaker It's not an either/or thing. Similarly, ISPs are also force…
> The platform is the medium that's enabling slander.
That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished.
On most countries, usually the specific infriging content is ordered to be taken down, not the entire account.
Read about DMCA for example. Youtube channels have specific content taken down, not the entire channel.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm originally from Turkey, and that's also the case with Erdoğan. I mean, they wouldn't be dictators if everyone agreed with them, no? The big problem arising from the stark polarization is that there's no uncontaminated news sources anymore. Many argue that news should be political anyway but I really miss reading stuff that doesn't fit 100 percent to a single agenda.
Hold on, Bolsonaro is not a dictator. Federalism even recently screwed him over. He didn't act on COVID but individual states imposed their own measures and thankfully countered his opinion.
That's like saying Mussolini was not a dictator in 1922, because there were still so many factions competing against him in Italian politics. Possibly true, but it's also clear what direction he was heading. By 1925 he had largely consolidated his power.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#179I am glad that Brazil's court still remains independent. Looks like Bolsonaro, should borrow couple of tips from his friend Narendra Modi. Modi, dismantled the institutions in India systematically to guarantee his long lasting power. e.g. The only official from the election commission who didn't give a clean-chit to Modi for his election campaign violations during last election was greeted with Income Tax raids on hi…
This is why I come to Hacker News. Absence of irrelevant political motivated posts with flimsy evidence.
[deleted]
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do you leave up the porn?
Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim.
> Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim.
Are you really saying that the way to deal with depictions of child-abuse is by assigning copyright to the victim and then asking the victim to deal with it judicially?
This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse.
Imagine being rescued by the police or some other group, and then having to independently deal with lawyers in the fallout of the case just to get justice done. This is why we have prosecutors and laws for.
On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective.
Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example.
The current system is much better than this. Not having someone yell "fire" and cause harm, or to have propagation of child-abuse dealt without doing more harm to the child are WAY more important than having absolute freedom of harming others (or, as you call it, freedom from censorship).
To quote Joseph Welch, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"