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

Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 855 posts

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#221

Post by verdverm »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #164
verdverm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

apps don't host data, PDS (personal data servers) do apps implement views on that data, and may or may not follow the rules, of gov't or users. For example, even though you can block a user, detach a quote post, or hide comments, apps have to implement this behavior, and nothing stops a person from finding that relation. ATProto is federated, not centralized, and not something gov'ts and regulations have thought thor…

> not something gov'ts and regulations have thought thoroughly about Not trying to be combative but I find this mode of thinking is likely to backfire, governments don't have to think they can just act - has bsky thought seriously about what their response will be to the same laws that X is suffering from?

Users have choice over moderation, it's not necessarily something Bluesky can limit, by design.

It's also worth seeing how it plays out with others, while you are still not on the radar. Part of the reason Xitter is getting harsher treatment is because Musk antagonized. That's not the best way to negotiate, especially since he said he'd abide by local rules, like how he said he'd be better for free speech.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#222

Post by throwaway48476 »

tootie wrote: post #218
throwaway48476 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.

And what would happen if they did not comply?

It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#223

Post by riverrunn01 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91
dgfitz wrote: post #74

Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol. So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part. Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge. The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian…

Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of…

Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, Tik Tok also had to remove content by court decision and they did comply it. Alexandre de Moraes at election's time was the judge of our TSE -- a branch of supreme court‬ which deals specifically with the electoral process. Many of these accounts participated in January 8, including promoting violence against institutions, some calling for a coup d'état. The continuous disregard of Brazilian laws meant that Musk, which in addition do not paid the fines, also removed his legal representatives from the country, which is not permitted by our legislation.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#224

Post by gmerc »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91
dgfitz wrote: post #74

Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol. So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part. Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge. The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian…

Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of…

"Illegal". That's, by definition, for the court to decide.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#225

Post by gmerc »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #203
throwadobe wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court. Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.

[flagged]

> Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino.

Right. Everyone can see that.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#226

Post by rtsil »

siproprio wrote: post #182
braiamp wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. As in Brazil constitution? They don't have free speech, but freedom of expression. Read article 5 of the Brazilian constitution.

What’s the difference between Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?

In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom.

Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive).

However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#227

Post by jazzyjackson »

pfraze wrote: post #78
jazzyjackson wrote: post #71

Is there any plan to offload hosting costs to users repos or do the relays have to bear the cost of images / videos ? It just seems very incongruous to me for a decentralized app to suffer from hugs of death like this link is right now. I actually tried to pull this up on the wayback machine but they seem to have only crawled as far as the butterfly logo ? Is this intentional ? I know that bluesky likes to give users…

The bad crawl for internet archive is because it's a giant SPA. It's a react native codebase which, while irritating for web users, allows us to target all the platforms without building multiple apps. Kind of a life-saver. Relays actually don't process media; that's up to the applications. We intentionally keep the repo-hosting costs low (and they'll get lower soon) so that self-hosting your data and keypairs remain…

my thinking wrt hugs of death is that if one host is saturated, the content would be available at another host, such that it's not simply unavailable due to high traffic, but leaving that aside, I'm still unsure which party is delivering content to end users.

If I host gifs at bsky.jazzyjackson.xyz, and my posts are indexed by some number of relays, and finally viewed by bsky or an alternate front end app, is that app mirroring my gifs to shoulder the burden, preventing traffic from hitting my $5 VPS?

I always thought {bit,web}torrent would be a good fit for this problem of mirroring content among multiple hosts, but maybe there's a reason no one has gone down that road.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#228

Post by eadler »

WalterBright wrote: post #220
eadler wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes he did: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.39... Parties include the following. The last 5 are advertisers. - WORLD FEDERATION OF ADVERTISERS; - UNILEVER PLC - UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. - MARS, INCORPORATED - CVS HEALTH CORPORATION - ØRSTED A/S docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world...

Yes, he sued not only the cartel organization, but its members. That seems only reasonable, as he sued them for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Do you think the Sherman Act is an unreasonable limitation on the free market?

I only specifically responded to the claim that the advertisers were not a party to the lawsuit.

I make no claim as to the nature of claim, the appropriateness of the Sherman act, or if the claims will fail as a matter of law or fact (or neither). I am not a lawyer and am especially clueless on the topic of antitrust law.

I did however, incidentally, see this recently which may be of interest on the topic:

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/08/26/why-elon-musks-and-xs-...

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#229

Post by churchill »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #197
sega_sai wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were to large extent provoked by misinformation about the attacker on kids party. The misinformation stayed on twitter for long time and was spread out by many people including Musk.

If you believe that I have a colour revolution theory to sell you.

A crazed 17yo son of African immigrants murdered 3 kids. Then, the far-right seized on it to make assumptions about the attacker, speculate he was a Muslim, and even provide a fake name. In fact, some of these Twitter accounts (Tristan Tate, etc.) shared the picture of a young Black preacher as the attacker. I saw it and I know when the post disappeared from EndWokeness' and Tristan Tate's page while I was reading through the comments. The young man in question had to make video clarifying he wasn't the attacker.

Re: Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky

#230

Post by riverrunn01 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #203
throwadobe wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court. Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.

[flagged]

You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all. WE have a specific bill that regulate specifically the internet and social media. We have a penal code that assure that freedom of speech it's not absolute. You do not have the right to be racis (for instance if you wear a nazi flag or post nazi content you go to jail). In 2021 the supreme court established a dept exactly to study and create legal mechanisms to understand and protect disinformation (specially on electoral period): https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ And also a vast jurisprudence on the subject on many instances of Brazilian Legal System: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprude...
Post reply on HN