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

301–310 of 855 posts

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

#301

Post by Aerroon »

rtsil wrote: post #226
siproprio wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). Howev…

>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.

But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone.

Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.

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

#302

Post by petre »

23B1 wrote: post #284
petre wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there was no need to do so because they banned the accounts themselves. They even banned the acting president's account. https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Yes, in the U.S. the obedient capitalists act as proxy censors for the government, in exchange for campaign donations, preferential tax treatment, and weak regulatory enforcement.

Proxy censors for the gov't? The US president represents the government, yet the company banned him.

Their shareholders don't want controversies screwing up their investment, so the management acted accordingly in the company's best interest.

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

#304

Post by matheusmoreira »

ElectricalUnion wrote: post #280
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly: IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly…

Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech.

You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following:

> the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed

It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation.

Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places.

> The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license

> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited

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

#306

Post by jimbob45 »

Adrian_Ferreira wrote: post #287

I'm from Brazil and this judge is totally out of control. I agree that X needs to have a legal representative in Brazil, this is correct anywhere, but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with. He threatened us to pay $9k in fines per day if we use VPN to access X. Unless you are part of the government base, it is diffic…

Do you not have some sort of expedited appeals process in Brazil to short circuit maverick judges like this?

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

#307

Post by JCharante »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #266
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders If the order is illegal you show that in court. U.S. district courts constantly issue illegal orders. There is a massive difference between appealing for an emergency stay and just blowing off the court. (Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has given zero shits about the rule of law across his career, domestically or abroad.) At the end of the day, both sides in this…

I mean, let’s be real. X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter?

I fully support Brazil banning X because a country can do whatever they want, but let’s not pretend X owes Brazil anything.

Brazil is irrelevant to X and countries that act like dictators deserve to be ignored by foreign companies. It’s hilarious to see Brazil play their cards and show they have no power over their citizens by threatening to fine them for using a VPN to access X.

This isn’t bias against LATAM, I also want to see Australia lose business due to their crazy spy laws.

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

#309

Post by Kye »

chrisweekly wrote: post #234
Kye wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context: atmosphere is like "Fediverse" but for the AT protocol and also way more schway

I had to check, and urbandictionary confirms, "schway" is > "A word to use when something is astonishingly cool, fashionable, or popular."

I got it from Batman Beyond.

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

#310

Post by 23B1 »

petre wrote: post #302
23B1 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in the U.S. the obedient capitalists act as proxy censors for the government, in exchange for campaign donations, preferential tax treatment, and weak regulatory enforcement.

Proxy censors for the gov't? The US president represents the government, yet the company banned him. Their shareholders don't want controversies screwing up their investment, so the management acted accordingly in the company's best interest.

Gosh, who will think of the shareholders?!
Post reply on HN