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

751–760 of 855 posts

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

#751

Post by kevinak »

pfraze wrote: post #201
throwaway48476 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A proper decentralized publishing platform would be content addressed not federated which retains all the downsides of centralization.

The bluesky team worked previously on IPFS and Dat/Hypercore and Secure Scuttlebutt. Whyrusleeping - one of the core authors of IPFS - has been an active technical advisor from the start. ATProto is basically those p2p & content addressed techs moved into the server stack. None of us are bullish on client side p2p for large scale publishing or social applications, and we spent 10 years each doing that.

I'd love to hear what the Bluesky team thinks of Nostr. It seems pretty damning to me that a founder of Bluesky is now talking up the latter.

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

#752

Post by nateglims »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #723
insane_dreamer wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Elon is that he's decided to pick and choose which countries he will comply with local legislation on, and which ones he won't. So India, Turkey, he did. Brazil, he didn't. Maybe the Supreme Court in Brazil is "wrong" and "corrupt" where legislators in India and Turkey are not, but knowing a fair bit about all three countries, I doubt very much that to be the case. So then it's a business decision --…

It’s a question of what is legal in each country. The censorship orders in Australia and India and Turkey complied with local laws so X stuck to their policy of following them. I detest censoring and authoritarianism in general, but X has publicly stated their policy is to comply with laws in each area. One thing I’ll mention: after Musk acquired X in 2022, they were engaged in a lawsuit against the government of Ind…

Courts are part of the legal system in most of the world. It’s kind of sovcit to say otherwise.

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

#753

Post by flakeoil »

signatoremo wrote: post #650
flakeoil wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.

Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla? Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business. Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwes…

Often as in much more than 50% of the time for fortune 500 companies. If the CEO and the Chairman of the Board is the same person then there is sort of a conflict of interest. The Board is there to oversee the work of the CEO. The board is headed by the Chairman of the Board. Thus, if the CEO and the Chairman is the same person, then the CEO is accountable to himself.

Not sure why you include investors all of a sudden, as I didn't mention about that. I have no issue with shareholders having a seat on the board.

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

#754

Post by wkat4242 »

lolinder wrote: post #736
wkat4242 wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well companies are by their very nature immoral. They don't care about any kind of morals, just making money. You even have to strongarm them into following the law (see Boeing, Volkswagen etc).

Yes. Which is why lasting change will never come from persuading the leadership of companies that your personal set of morals need to be followed if they want to be successful—they'll follow you for as long as you are powerful and bail as soon as you aren't. You have to change hearts and minds within the broader population in order to bring lasting power towards change, but that's something that the modern crop of pr…

> You have to change hearts and minds within the broader population in order to bring lasting power towards change, but that's something that the modern crop of progressives entirely gave up on 10+ years ago in favor of racing to the finish line and declaring victory prematurely.

I can't speak for America as I've never been there, but here in Southern Europe it was pretty successful and at least LGBTIQ+ are really well accepted now I think part of the issue is that what is considered "left" in America (liberal/democratic party) is still very right-wing here in Europe, especially in economical terms, not as much in social ones. What the republican represent would be radical-right here.

So I just can't compare politics here.

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

#755

Post by lolinder »

wkat4242 wrote: post #754
lolinder wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Which is why lasting change will never come from persuading the leadership of companies that your personal set of morals need to be followed if they want to be successful—they'll follow you for as long as you are powerful and bail as soon as you aren't. You have to change hearts and minds within the broader population in order to bring lasting power towards change, but that's something that the modern crop of pr…

> You have to change hearts and minds within the broader population in order to bring lasting power towards change, but that's something that the modern crop of progressives entirely gave up on 10+ years ago in favor of racing to the finish line and declaring victory prematurely. I can't speak for America as I've never been there, but here in Southern Europe it was pretty successful and at least LGBTIQ+ are really we…

Europe shifted culturally, but cultural changes in America take much more time because there's just so much diversity of people spread across such a large landmass. Real change was going to take a long time, and Progressive efforts here to push too far too fast created an equal and opposite reaction that directly led to the populist movement that has been exploited by Donald Trump.

I think that the fact that Europe leans further left than the US is actually part of the problem we have with moving at all— American progressives got impatient to join you and lost the discipline and patience that characterized previous generations' efforts towards change. The approach they've taken instead is entirely ineffective and, as bemoaned by the parent commenter, creates short-lived successes that quickly get rolled back.

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

#756

Post by viraptor »

itsoktocry wrote: post #602
viraptor wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection It's only for existing customers and because they can't charge them anymore, but don't want to drop the customers just yet. It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture.

> It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture. What a goofy assertion. Yeah, the big concern for Starlink and Musk is maintaining non-paying customers. It's not altruism either, it's political.

There's a cost to acquiring new customers and friction when switching providers. Overall it's going to be cheaper for starlink to eat the cost for now if they expect to resume operations than to convince the same number of customers to switch again.

It's the same reason you get offers of discounts or free periods when you try to cancel services from large companies. They care about your worth over years, not just right now.

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

#757

Post by fluoridation »

fjkdlsjflkds wrote: post #735
nickpsecurity wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was commenting strictly on what’s in the articles’ links. If he did that, it would be just as deplorable as the censorship they were claiming to oppose.

> If he did that , it would be just as deplorable [...] No need for hypotheticals. He did do that (this is an easily-verifiable fact [1][2][3]). > [...] the censorship they were claiming to oppose. The thing is that this is clearly an empty claim, when Musk has no problems either complying with similar censoring orders from right-wing governments (Modi, Erdogan) or with arbitrarily censoring people for using medicall…

Regardless of Musk's motivations, would you rather he had complied with this latest request? In other words, would you rather there's more censorship in the world?

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

#758

Post by fjkdlsjflkds »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #737
fjkdlsjflkds wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "ci…

> If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). It was a secret order from one justice of the Supreme Court, not an official order or decision from the whole of the Supreme Court. It came with an order to maintain secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, which tells you all you need to know…

> This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries.

It's relevant, because it shows that Twitter/Musk has no problem engaging in state-mandated censorship, as long as it the mandate comes under the form of a judicial order.

The fact that Twitter/Musk also has no problem engaging in non-state-mandated censorship (e.g., banning of arbitrary words that displease Musk), further reinforces the notion that the refusal has nothing to do with "not wanting to cave to [censorship] demands".

> Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied.

According to article 19 of the Constitution of India (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/), "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression".

> It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.

According to what? Constitutional law (the same way censorship is also illegal under Indian Constitutional law)?

If the supreme court justice is "rogue", there are specific mechanisms in the Brazilian political system to boot him out of the TSF.

> You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.

Unless the dictatorship changes the constitution (or some other laws) to make censorship legal, right? Otherwise, it's ok, according to your logic, since Musk/Twitter is ok with censorship, as long as (they consider) it is legal.

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

#759

Post by edwinjm »

VancouverMan wrote: post #608
bobbruno wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also brazilian here. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of illegal speech. One is allowed to go public and speak their minds, but if their speech is illegal (hate speech, conspiracy to overthrow the government, political campaigning during embargo periods), there will be consequences for those, and that does not constitute censorship. Initially, consequences were not that bad (take down of…

"Freedom of speech" can't coexist with "illegal speech". The moment that something is deemed "illegal" to express, there inherently is no more free expression present.

No.

You can have freedom of speech, but there’s no country were it’s absolute. You’re always responsible for consequences of what you say.

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

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

#760

Post by slowhadoken »

Green_Frog wrote: post #678
threeseed wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because X is not complying with the law in that country. Whether the law is right or not is irrelevant. You either comply or leave.

Brazilian here. We don't have rule of law here anymore. It's a covert dictatorship run at the front end by one judge, Alexandre de Moraes, and a small group of collaborators. He interprets the law however he wants or just outright ignores it in favor of ad hoc absurd interpretations, and there is no one left to judge the "supreme" judge. He effectively figures as accuser, defendant and judge in his own cases, which h…

Thank you for the information. Everyone else on here is doing the aggressive, ignorant, high-minded American routine. I’ll keep reading but it looks like my suspicions are confirmed.
Post reply on HN