Well I'm also super concerned that he has expressed dictatorial aspirations. But as of right now the constitution holds.
"Super concerned?" The guy wanted to celebrate the coup that started the last dictatorship. Stop splitting hairs. 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.
Read what I said. I said I'm super concerned about it :D
> 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…
ISPs comply on a national level. Facebook was demanded to comply on a worldwide level based on a national law. That's the whole point.
> ISPs comply on a national level.
Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers if their service violates the law.
Facebook's service is breaking the law, thus the court determined it should not. That's the point.
ISPs comply on a national level. Facebook was demanded to comply on a worldwide level based on a national law. That's the whole point.
> ISPs comply on a national level. Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers if their service violates the law. Facebook's service is breaking the law, thus the court determined it should not. That's the point.
Actually, you're wrong. Facebook strives to comply on a national level only whenever possible.
"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…
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. This is what these people were doing - calling for the ousting of the head of the judicial branch, calling for a military coup, spreading hatred and slandering prominent figures from the left... They need to answer for that.
> Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. That's a commonly-held belief, but runs contrary to the history and law behind the quote. That particular quote was an example in a US Supreme Court case that was decided poorly and later changed (in 1969 I think). In the US, I believe threats of violence or harm are covered by the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing immine…
> In the US, I believe threats of violence or harm are covered by the First Amendment
That's not true. That's way too vague and broad of a claim. In general, specific threats of violence and harm are explicitly not free speech and not protected. And if they're not specific, they're not really "threats". Incitement, fighting words, and other speech often involved in fights where violent threats are made (such as slander and perjury) are all US exceptions to free speech that extend past the imminent lawless action clause.
Brazilian here. Our law is incompatible with the Internet as we know it. Below is a brief excerpt from our 1989 Constitution, translated by myself: Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes: (All men are e…
Yes. Courts all over the world are discovering and dealing with the difficulties of imposing their own nation's laws on an international communications network. Currently it is relatively easy to become anonymous on the internet and avoid the consequences of free speech, especially since brazilian law enforcement is not as sophisticated as organizations such as the FBI when it comes to cyber crime investigation.
The end result will be the regionalization of the internet. Instead of one global network, we'll have several national or regional networks. This will be possible because internet providers are centralized services which are easily controlled by the governments.
Facebook seems to still have some profit, so it clearly has capacity. The insufficient number of people looking at reported violations is by design.
This assumes that there is a solution 'if you just throw enough money at it'. I'm not familiar enough with how large scale moderation works, so is this solvable, with near unlimited funds?
It really only assumes the solution gets better if you throw more money at it. And that, frankly, is essentially certain given the fact that they need to pay for human eyeballs. Also, the problems facebook has are somewhat misrepresented often - they don't actually need to moderate everything equally intensively - most of the impact will be there with the things that get shared publicly and are viewed often. Comparing the amount of moderator time with total posting volume is thus misleading, trying to make it appear like a hopeless case. But look at it the other way around, not from the poster's side, but the reader's - clearly reads aren't distributed evently; so it's plausible you might catch 90% of post readungs with just 10% of post writings (I don't know the proportion, but I'd expect it to be heavily skewed).
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…
From a US perspective that type of prior restraint on free speech prior to a criminal conviction just seems bizarre. Regardless of whether or not the suspects accused in this case are actually guilty, it gives the authorities too much power to suppress dissent.
I’ve always thought that quote itself was curiously absolute. ‘Only’, Yoda?
That whole movie is about how the Jedi completely lost their way from millennia of stagnation to the point that they couldn't recognize the sith in their midsts anymore, and how their own well meaning influence contributed to their own downfall.
The Jedi were a death cult of religious fanatics who coerced child soldiers into fighting their wars of conquest.