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

321–330 of 388 posts

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#321

Post by robertlagrant »

hungie wrote: post #315
robertlagrant wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the opposition was spreading lies about elections being stolen, that seems like reasonable content to moderate. Absolutely not. That might be the absolute world's last content that should be touched.

Come off the hyperbole. You don't believe that. I guarantee you you can think of content that's something we should moderate less. What about opposition candidates spreading truthful information. You'd really moderate the truth away before you'd moderate blatant misinformation?

Fair point - I mean opposing speech in general, and not just that specific phrase. I wasn't clear.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#322

Post by cassianoleal »

facorreia wrote: post #95
narrator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's just making it up as he goes along now.

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.

Which part of that law have the users of VPNs violated?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#323

Post by cassianoleal »

crazygringo wrote: post #286
bufferoverflow wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And banning a social media platform that millions use is not?

Banning a site is one thing. Banning an entire communications technology, with abusively high fines for citizens who defy the ban, is on a whole other level.

X is not communications technology. It's a forum website controlled by a private company. It's not like they're a protocol or that they're infrastructure.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#324

Post by exe34 »

stufffer wrote: post #74
exe34 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

collaborating with a law breaker in contempt of court.

Laws don't even seem to be applicable at this point. It is one supreme court justice that is issuing court orders as if he were a king.

The law does apply. Xitter is being sued, but Elon refuses to appoint a legal representative in the country. The judge has the right to ban the product until the owner or their representative shows up.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#325

Post by cassianoleal »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #294
laborcontract wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even remotely modeled after the US system of checks and balances? How does the court have what also seems like legislative power?

Yes. However checks and balances work because the other branches will choose to assert their power over a branch that is overstepping. However, the other branches are in the hands of the ruling socialists, and they are just happy to let the judiciary do their dirty work. And, they have quite a few skeletons still in their closet after the Lava Jato scandal. Anyway a thorough explanation of the applicable law, point b…

> However, the other branches are in the hands of the ruling socialists

I'm sorry, but... what?

The Executive is the one closest to this qualification, but Lula, Haddad, Zé Múcio, Tebet and the others in power are nowhere even close to being socialists! Lula perhaps, until about a couple decades ago was a little bit closer but now he's not even on the left very much.

The Congress and the Senate, on the other hand, are mostly in the hands of neopentecostal evangelicals, the pro-gun nutjobs, the agrobusiness tycoons and other capitalists and fascists.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#326

Post by cassianoleal »

schleck8 wrote: post #272
pr337h4m wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the Brazilian government will lose this round. X is not going to cave, and the government doesn’t have the technological capacity to quickly spin up their own Great Firewall.

The average person doesn't know what a DNS is and isn't willing to pay for a VPN. Society isn't a tech bubble.

I don't know what you mean by "the average person" but most of my friends in Brazil, even the relatively tech illiterates, not only know what a VPN is but many or even most of them either have paid or currently pay for one.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#327

Post by shark1 »

shark1 wrote: post #218

The list below contains all the countries where the government is very worried about the information available on Twitter/X: - Brazil - Venezuela - North Korea - China - Iran - Myanmar - Pakistan - Russia - Turkmenistan

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#328

Post by joaogui1 »

hintymad wrote: post #264
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...

Wow! Day by day, I appreciate more and more how precious the liberty and freedom we have in the US. And shame on Canada and UK!

What did Canada and UK do?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#329

Post by swader999 »

Georgelemental wrote: post #188
swader999 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Lula was left wing.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Indeed.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#330

Post by mikrotikker »

ffsm8 wrote: post #304
g-b-r wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They're essentially saying that they don't want the US 1st amendment imported into their state. So they should block it like they have and that be that.

Poor bastards.

Post reply on HN