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

Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#121

Post by anon291 »

surgical_fire wrote: post #28
anon291 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon musk who is the owner of Twitter -- an individual -- actually has a fundamental right to speak to Brazilians via his service. Companies absolutely have rights especially when they're owned by an individual. Banding together in groups does not eliminate human rights.

Elon Musk is not a Brazilian citizen, nor he his a resident of Brazil, not holds any permission to stay in the country as of now. He has, in fact, zero rights to communicate in Brazil.

Communicating with humans is a human right.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#122

Post by anon291 »

marcinzm wrote: post #18
anon291 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just be glad they're taking a stand now? I'm so confused. Edit: also looking at the history here... They fought those bans too. I'm guessing, due to Indias importance to the IT industry, twitter was unable to pull out entirely, leaving their employees vulnerable if they didn't comply. Not sure about turkey, but it looks like in this case, they are able to avoid censorship by pulling out entirely. Brazil is an…

They're not taking a stand. Turkey and India have right wing authoritarian governments that Musk is literal friends with. Brazil does not. I don't want un-elected social media billionaires making political decisions for me.

Twitter isn't a government and doesn't make political decisions.

The more pressing issue is governments censoring opposition

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#123

Post by defrost »

_heimdall wrote: post #120
rbanffy wrote: post #2

Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company. If the company wants the product to be available, then it should respect local laws the same way it did in Turkey and India.

The claim is that the ban request doesn't actually comply with Brazilian law. I'm no lawyer and don't know how accurate that is, but if correct that Twitter would be complying with local laws by refusing the unlawful order.

The claim by Musk (who is also not a lawyer, nor Brazilian) is that a single renegade Brazilian Suprem Court Justice has made a non compliant unconstitutional ban request.

The report here asserts that every single other Brazilian Supreme Court Justice has backed that ban.

You may not be a lawyer, like Musk, but I'm led to believe that all the Justices of the Braziian Supreme Court are, and that they understand the Brazilian Legal system.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#124

Post by kaba0 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #50
kaba0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why regulation should apply to services like that, the same way a private company should not be able to block a highway that is critical to the functioning of a country. Twitter since elon’s criminal “leadership” has become a bot-infested cesspool of racist bullshit, where he unilaterally censors whatever he dislikes in his sissy fits. In this form, this is a manipulation device, and good riddance.

There is a lot more than racist bullshit that is going on on Twitter/X, for example, a lot of interesting voices from Ukraine. If I were a Brasilian, I would certainly deeply resent the idea that my government treats me like a digital serf who is only allowed to move within a certain "area". I don't believe in merits of censorship, regardless of all the putative benefits it always claims. And yeah, I am aware that Mu…

Governments are elected by people, and are the best representatives of what the people want. You rather a foreign agent with questionable motives be the arbiter of truth, rather than the body that is elected more or less democratically?

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#125

Post by kaba0 »

ripjaygn wrote: post #110
kaba0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why regulation should apply to services like that, the same way a private company should not be able to block a highway that is critical to the functioning of a country. Twitter since elon’s criminal “leadership” has become a bot-infested cesspool of racist bullshit, where he unilaterally censors whatever he dislikes in his sissy fits. In this form, this is a manipulation device, and good riddance.

> Twitter since elon’s criminal “leadership” has become a bot-infested cesspool of racist bullshit, where he unilaterally censors whatever he dislikes in his sissy fits. In this form, this is a manipulation device, and good riddance If that is true then why do Biden, Kamala, the DNC, and most European politicians continue to post heavily on it?

The two statements are not contradictory, and it still hasn’t lost all its users from the twitter times, when it was a decent social media.

You can easily verify my statement if you wish, look up all the instances where Elon decided to ban stuff he dislikes, the rate of flat out racist bullshit, etc.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#126

Post by vitorgrs »

_heimdall wrote: post #117
ripjaygn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Brazilian users are posting "I am using a VPN to access X" on BlueSky so the judge will probably order BlueSky to turn over their IP addresses(like he did in orders to X) so they can be fined $9000 a day.

To be fair, that order would only matter if Bluesky is logging and storing user IPs. I don't know of any technical reason for needing to track that based on the AT Protocol, they could avoid the entire problem by not tracking that data (assuming they currently do).

You probably need to store user IPs to moderate.

At least on Mastodon, any instance stores IP, so....

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#127

Post by kranke155 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #107
kranke155 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, so what. It's their business what accounts are allowed under local law.

Local law says censorship is unconstitutional. It goes out of its way to spell out that on top of censorship being unconstitutional, political censorship is especially unconstitutional. That means it's super mega ultra unconstitutional. That's the whole point, you know. We think this supreme court judge is violating the constitution by doing things like ordering the censorship of "fake news". These were political acc…

You seem misinformed. Sources ?

They literally just approved a law against misinformation.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#128

Post by kranke155 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #107
kranke155 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, so what. It's their business what accounts are allowed under local law.

Local law says censorship is unconstitutional. It goes out of its way to spell out that on top of censorship being unconstitutional, political censorship is especially unconstitutional. That means it's super mega ultra unconstitutional. That's the whole point, you know. We think this supreme court judge is violating the constitution by doing things like ordering the censorship of "fake news". These were political acc…

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o

Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges.

A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not.

B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not.

C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court

D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#129

Post by inglor_cz »

kaba0 wrote: post #124
inglor_cz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot more than racist bullshit that is going on on Twitter/X, for example, a lot of interesting voices from Ukraine. If I were a Brasilian, I would certainly deeply resent the idea that my government treats me like a digital serf who is only allowed to move within a certain "area". I don't believe in merits of censorship, regardless of all the putative benefits it always claims. And yeah, I am aware that Mu…

Governments are elected by people, and are the best representatives of what the people want. You rather a foreign agent with questionable motives be the arbiter of truth, rather than the body that is elected more or less democratically?

I don't want governments to be arbiters of truth at all. Elected, unelected, I just don't want them to do this kind of job, much like I don't want a plumber to dictate the contents of my next lunch.

The idea that governments should stick their fingers into anything they want is literally the definition of a totalitarian society.

Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky

#130

Post by cassianoleal »

_heimdall wrote: post #118
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well X/Elon is more than happy to comply with censorship and records requests from Western/NATO countries.

I'm no lawyer, but the claim is that the request made by the Brazilian judge doesn't comply with Brazil's own laws. Presumably if X (not Elon) has complied with other censorship requests they found the requests to be lawful.

It's not up to X/Musk to decide that though. If they feel that way, there are legal avenues to pursue. They should always comply with the court orders, then challenge them. Not doing so is breaking the law and should be punished as such.
Post reply on HN