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

301–310 of 388 posts

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#301

Post by foinker »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #274
foinker wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.

we should accept that government agencies are not suitable for the purpose of providing your basic food, medical, education, or security needs; who furthermore only care about your food, your healthcare, habeas corpus or rule of law when it suits them and maintains their job. There are other ways besides the USDA, DoE, or FBI to get good food, health, education, and security.

Seriously? Governments' legitimacy is pinned to their ability to provide food and medical attention to their citizenry. It doesn't make any difference whether or not twitter exists or who has access to it.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#302

Post by MyFedora »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #300
ffsm8 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want Google of all companies to stand above the sovereign state, which is a representative democracy? The ruling is incredibly dumb for sure (at least the removing apps from devices part), but if the sovereign state demands it, they'll either have to exit the market/nation entirely or comply.

It's a bit silly & over the top, but I do think there's a huge danger to this planet with lots and lots and lots of jurisdictions all over the planet who have all kinds of incentives to self deal, to try to bend the internet & computing to their whims. And the Internet & computing can't have such extreme veto power over how we think & connect. Europe for example has granted itself a right to be forgotten, where even…

The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the operator of a search engine is not required to carry out a de-referencing on all versions of its search engine. So, it's a bit bold of you to say that Europe is trying to control the entire internet when they explicitly told Google they're allowed to limit the impact to Europe alone.

Also, the "right to be forgotten" suggests more rights of the data subject than the text of the article provides for. The title is often understood by data subjects to be an absolute right to have personal data deleted - however if the controller has a legal basis for the processing of personal data, the exercise of Article 17 GDPR has usually no effect.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#303

Post by hintymad »

6nf wrote: post #283
hintymad wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fining even users is a bit surprising Not really. Using VPN is illegal in China. The police can put you in jail for using VPNs. Of course, there are very few cases like this even though many people use underground VPNs. This is typical behavior of an authoritarian state: the government reserves the rights to punish you when the situation is right.

VPNs are not illegal in China. About a third of people in China use VPNs and the govt is fine with VPNs unless you're using it to break the law.

You’re right, technically VPN is not illegal, as long as the operators abide laws. It is using VPN to get across GFW that is illegal: https://m.sohu.com/a/738815891_800907/?pvid=000115_3w_a#:~:t...

So, yeah, it is practically illegal to use VPN in China.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#304

Post by ffsm8 »

g-b-r wrote: post #270
ffsm8 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want Google of all companies to stand above the sovereign state, which is a representative democracy? The ruling is incredibly dumb for sure (at least the removing apps from devices part), but if the sovereign state demands it, they'll either have to exit the market/nation entirely or comply.

being a democracy does not guarantee that everything you do is correct

Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such.

It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not.

This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM.

This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#306

Post by geraldog »

Citing that it might be cumbersome for App Stores to implement the order then revert it, de Moraes reverted the order for Google and Apple to ban VPNs from Stores.

I bet it won't stop there. He won't be satisfied until he blocks Tor too, which X / Twitter could plausibly setup as an Onion service.

This is all because the National Assembly that promulgated the 1988 Brazilian Constitution chose to specifically ban anonymity. It's on paragraph IV, article 5 of Brazilian Constitution.

I got downvoted for posting the obvious topic here so once again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41316512

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#308

Post by Scion9066 »

geraldog wrote: post #306

Citing that it might be cumbersome for App Stores to implement the order then revert it, de Moraes reverted the order for Google and Apple to ban VPNs from Stores. I bet it won't stop there. He won't be satisfied until he blocks Tor too, which X / Twitter could plausibly setup as an Onion service. This is all because the National Assembly that promulgated the 1988 Brazilian Constitution chose to specifically ban anon…

X already has an onion service I believe, check the x.com meta tags for "onion-location".
Post reply on HN