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

371–380 of 388 posts

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#371

Post by Wytwwww »

jrflowers wrote: post #362
Wytwwww wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. I wouldn't necessarily use words like 'good' and 'evil' here but the fact that a judge can (arbitrarily ) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system. Genuinely curious how can someone defend…

> judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system This is where you are inserting “arbitrarily” as both a statement of fact and moral wrongness. Every single court in every single country has the ability to issue court orders on businesses that operate in that country. It is true in the US,…

> your issue is with courts in general

Not all laws are equal, just like not all countries and courts are. Some are more authoritarian and arbitrary than others and therefore inherently less legitimate.

> His side of this is literally nonsense > actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law

Musk is a jerk, I get it and fully agree with that. How is this relevant, though?

Also you really have no issue with the attempted VPN ban and fines for individual who are using Twitter? Or a legal system that could allow something like that? Really?

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#372

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #292
guhcampos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone, but the apps would be gone from the stores, which does not make it much less of a bullshit. Restricting access to X makes sense: the platform has removed themselves from the country, making it impossible to resolve legal and financial disputes in Brazil, so it makes sense they are not allowed to operate in the country anymore. Then again, punishing users that acce…

No, it doesn't make sense. The reason they had to pull out of the country is that representatives of X were about to be thrown in jail for an American business not honoring censorship edicts written by this judge. Why not Meta or Google? Because they've honored the censorship orders. When he couldn't find representatives of X, he went after SpaceX and StarLink, even though no law allows him to do so. The judge is sim…

This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election.

Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#373

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

schleck8 wrote: post #271
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?

The US is in no position to critique other countries' checks and balances right now with how the Supreme Court works

What makes you think that? The US isn't a single person.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#374

Post by [deleted] »

exe34 wrote: post #324
stufffer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#375

Post by slowmovintarget »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #372
slowmovintarget wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't make sense. The reason they had to pull out of the country is that representatives of X were about to be thrown in jail for an American business not honoring censorship edicts written by this judge. Why not Meta or Google? Because they've honored the censorship orders. When he couldn't find representatives of X, he went after SpaceX and StarLink, even though no law allows him to do so. The judge is sim…

This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election. Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.

No. The judge is attempting to silence anyone speaking out against the new leftist government. Meta and Google silently complied. X did not.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#376

Post by jrflowers »

Wytwwww wrote: post #371
jrflowers wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system This is where you are inserting “arbitrarily” as both a statement of fact and moral wrongness. Every single court in every single country has the ability to issue court orders on businesses that operate in that country. It is true in the US,…

> your issue is with courts in general Not all laws are equal, just like not all countries and courts are. Some are more authoritarian and arbitrary than others and therefore inherently less legitimate. > His side of this is literally nonsense > actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law Musk is a jerk, I get it and fully agree with that. How is this relevant, though? Also yo…

I see that you saw “crybaby libertarian” and felt compelled to comment on it but did not read “coup” and feel the same way.

“I see you said a mean thing, mayhaps you did not write anything else before or after that” is not a correct way to point out an ad hominem fallacy.

Which of the following statements would you agree with most?

A. This whole thing is not about the events of January 8th

B. The events of January 8th were good, actually. They should be repeated until the current government is forcibly overthrown and someone sympathetic to Bolsonaro is installed.

C. I do not care about the events of January 8th. My concept of freedom of speech covers incitement to violence, a right that does not exist in any country.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#377

Post by [deleted] »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #375
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election. Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.

No. The judge is attempting to silence anyone speaking out against the new leftist government. Meta and Google silently complied. X did not.

[deleted]

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#378

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #375
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election. Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.

No. The judge is attempting to silence anyone speaking out against the new leftist government. Meta and Google silently complied. X did not.

You're right, I confused 2 different South American elections and am dumb and sorry.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#379

Post by robertlagrant »

hungie wrote: post #347
robertlagrant wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right. Oppositional speech is worth keeping. But when oppositional speech is like, "Covid vaccines are made from dead children, so you must not vote for whomever", I start to be like, a whole lot less sympathetic to the idea that we should not moderate at all.

I think you shouldn't be calling censorship "moderation". If you want censorship then say so.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#380

Post by guywithahat »

NomDePlum wrote: post #124
hereme888 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. You think Elon Musk goes around reading people's tweets and deciding what he wants or not? Or trained an AI model to only allow content that suits him? The guy literally gets community-noted every once in a while. It's free speech.

What's the relationship between twitter and free speech? I genuinely don't see that argument.

When Elon first bought Twitter, they released a bunch of information on how governments (specifically the US government) was pressuring Twitter to remove content, often for political reasons (i.e. it was a conservative account, etc). He stopped doing that, and generally supports free speech on the platform; sort of in a 2008 reddit way
Post reply on HN