Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazilian court orders suspension of X

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 388 posts

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#171

Post by Georgelemental »

hungie wrote: post #115
robertlagrant wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the pro-authoritarian stance.

I don't know what content was requested to be removed. If the opposition was spreading lies about elections being stolen, that seems like reasonable content to moderate. Not all moderation is bad, and different places have different tolerances for it. I keep seeing people say "silencing the opposition" but not actually providing what that means in practice. Could be authoritarian, could be not. Given musk's history a…

> that seems like reasonable content to moderate

Why should the government be the one to make that decision? If anyone has a conflict of interest, it's them, no?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#172

Post by guerrilla »

Fabricio20 wrote: post #28
cowsup wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core facts are: Brazil demanded information regarding Brazilian users, and believed it was in their right to do so. X believed that the requests did not comply with Brazilian laws, and refused. Neither side yielded, so X closed up shop in Brazil, and, as a result, Brazil is blocking access to X.

There is actually more to this here, it was not just information about Brazilian users, the request was actually to shadowban (block without notifying the users) specific accounts. Some of those accounts happen to be political opposition (actual politicians too) to this judge and his party in general. I believe twitter or musk himself leaked all court documents when this request came in. Twitter/X closed shop because…

What is this judge's party?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#173

Post by throwaway87267 »

btilly wrote: post #120
throwaway87267 wrote: post #13

The same judge that is responsible for X's suspension ordered Apple and Google to take down VPN apps from their app stores as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20240830201851/https://www.conju... (Page 49 and 50, document is in Portuguese) Brazil is heading down a very dark path.

Are computer VPN apps also banned? How are they planning to handle remote employees whose employers use VPNs?

The document makes no mention of any desktop OS, so computer VPN apps should be safe.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#174

Post by kgeist »

virgulino wrote: post #5

"People who use VPN to access X will be subject to daily fines of US$8,900" Edit: Thanks for this user https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41404325 for posting the court order and bringing this new information: Apple and Google must remove all VPN apps from their stores! Apple and Google must DELETE all VPN apps already installed on users' phones!!! https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-suspended-de-moraes...

Pretty hardcore even by the Russian standards. People aren't fined for using VPN here. That's some next level.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#175

Post by NomDePlum »

virgulino wrote: post #119
facorreia wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brazil, a Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to impose fines on people and companies that violate the law. In this case, federal law #12.965.

I did NOT violate the law. How come he is deleting the VPN apps on my phone??? That I need to remote to my overseas job??? How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job?

Things deemed illegal or not compliant by a jurisdictional entity often have negative consequences for others.

Most legal judgements are blunt swords.

Fairness is seldom considered.

I'm not agreeing with the outcomes here. Just pointing out laws get enforced, if they don't they aren't laws.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#176

Post by brigadier132 »

hungie wrote: post #167
brigadier132 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just from skimming a translated version, it does not seem like Judges have the power to impose fines, ban unrelated companies that are owned by the same person, or ban things like VPNs. Am I missing something?

I'm guessing a "skimmed translation" probably doesn't give you a complete understanding of Brazilian law...

Yes, thank you, that's why I've been asking people. Do you have an actual answer or do you just have nothing of value to add?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#177

Post by hungie »

seanw444 wrote: post #146
ein0p wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet China would be happy to help. It also cracks me up that people on this site were almost entirely in favor of a TikTok ban, but when it’s someone else’s government doing what amounts to the same thing then they’re “heading down a dark path”. Could folks please make up their minds and not treat the US as though it’s exempt from the “dark paths”?

Ah yes, the platform that advocates free speech is totally worth the same hate as the platform that is a demonstrable psyop by a communist regime.

If you believe X advocates free speech, you have an imperfect view of X or free speech. Maybe they made your political speech more permissible, but they are clamping down hard on other speech.

Free speech absolutists should be just as irritated by today's X as yesterday's Twitter. Subbing out one set of permitted speech for a different set is not a free speech win.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#178

Post by SiempreViernes »

brigadier132 wrote: post #72
crop_rotation wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual power is what a society will accept. At this point it seems like he can do anything a monarch could do in a kinda modern society.

Sure but I'm asking in theory, what is the power of justices according to their constitution.

Do note that some a important power of the US supreme court, the right to declare laws void because they are unconstitutional, is not a right listed in the Constitution itself.

Rather the supreme court declared in 1803 that they had that right, because it makes sense if you sort of squint at the constitution.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#179

Post by wtcactus »

theginger wrote: post #116

What starlink chooses to do will be most interesting, deny any connection, block X like the isps have been ordered and try and get their bank accounts reinstated. Or pull out of Brazil on the ground and operate as a rogue isp whose money can be blocked, in the short term at least but not their service. I hope it's the 2nd, be a lesson to all world leaders, and not just ultra authoritarian ones, that the Internet does…

I’m guessing starlink is already (or soon will be) ilegal to sell in Brazil.

So, assuming this judge won’t go as far as forcing people with starlink antennas to remove their existing installations, they will be the only ones able to use outside access. And that is an extremely low percentage of the population.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#180

Post by diegoholiveira »

jrflowers wrote: post #150
diegoholiveira wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a court orders you to shoot someone in the head, would you do it?

If the tooth fairy asked Bob Ross to do a kick flip over Mordor does that mean that Long John Silver’s is open on Sunday? This question is an equally relevant response to someone pointing out an uncontested fact about how courts work.

Is it?
Post reply on HN