211–220 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Brazilian Supreme Court is asking Facebook to block accounts globally, not only in Brazil.
Asking? Is that what they're doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. You may not agree with Zuckerberg's position of not censoring content (beyond the obscene), but it's probably the smartest position for the business. As soon as you start saying "well, we'll censor stuff that isn't accurate", you've opened a Pandora's box of every single interest group hammering you on every single decision and in the end everyone thinks you're screwing them over.
Facebook has access to the biggest and most ubiquitous information delivery platform IN THE WORLD today. To let them off the hook for the role they had in helping letting the idea of ABSOLUTE TRUTH degrade, as well as the role they COULD have in helping fix it, is not thinking big enough. Facebook could choose to be an active participant in the quest to reinforce the value of reality-orientated information exchange.…
I 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…
You're glad that this independent court is censoring people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well I'm also super concerned that he has expressed dictatorial aspirations. But as of right now the constitution holds.
http://www.iconnectblog.com/2019/04/bolsonaros-unconstitutio...
Note: Trump's call for postponing the election is exactly the same thing. Evidence they have no interest in constitutional democracy and will, at the earliest possible moment, impose total control on the country.
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision. This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s expl…
Many countries under the Crown do not have freedom of speech. In New Zealand, the live stream video from the Christchurch shooting was illegal to possess or distribute, without seeking specific permission (e.g for academic purposes). Most Kiwi's I've talked to considered this reasonable, and even the Americans who immigrated understood and accepted this limit when they choose to apply for residence or citizenship.
Australia doesn't have freedom of speech or a bill or rights, but the state of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights.
China has freedom of speech in their constitution.
The freedom isn't the most important part, but the due process of law that comes around fighting for, maintaining and putting reasonable limits on those freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished. No, it's like saying that roads which are found to be repeatedly causing accidents should be fixed in order to allow everyone to drive safely. Which is what happens in real life. And you seemed to have turned a blind eye to the fact that ISPs have been for decades complying with court orders to remove access to illegal conten…
Facebook was demanded to comply on a worldwide level based on a national law.
That's the whole point.
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision. This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s expl…
> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and t…
Do you have any source? I tried to google 'Roberto Jefferson OAB', but I found nothing.
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision. This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s expl…
> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and t…
Questioning procedures is a healthy part of the democratic game. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s evidence that crimes we’re committed, and legal action is being taken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Polarization is exactly that, remove all gradients. Fascists like to make out everything is black-white. “Only siths deal in absolutes”
I’ve always thought that quote itself was curiously absolute. ‘Only’, Yoda?