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

131–140 of 163 posts

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

#131

Post by ivewonyoung »

_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).

The judge would probably force the legal rep to log ip addresses the next time those users access BlueSky under threat of jail time and frozen bank accounts like he did for Twitters rep.

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

#132

Post by cassianoleal »

Glyptodon wrote: post #61
welshwelsh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad they didn't comply. I don't want social media platforms banning people just because some national government told them to.

I think a distinction is to be made between a government and a court.

Agree. The court is part of the government. It acts as the government as well, within its legal boundaries.

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

#133

Post by rbanffy »

hwhwhwhhwhwh wrote: post #33
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.

Turkey and India is probably not the best examples humanity want to try to emulate when it comes to human rights. And this is coming from someone born and raised in India.

And yet Musk had no issue complying with local law.

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

#134

Post by rbanffy »

inglor_cz wrote: post #129
kaba0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t want Musk to be an arbiter of truth either, and I’m sure we can all agree how much of a terrible idea that’d be.

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

#135

Post by rbanffy »

anon291 wrote: post #121
surgical_fire wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He can scream if he wants. He can’t use our digital commons for that.

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

#136

Post by rbanffy »

wongarsu wrote: post #55
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.

> Twitter is not a fundamental right Before Musk bought Twitter there were plenty of people arguing on here that in the age of the internet Twitter and places like it are essential as forums of public discourse, and access to them should be as unlimited as possible. Twitter refusing bans and continuing operations in a hostile country was some people's wet dream just a couple years ago. I guess it's a lesson to be car…

Complaints were about presidents blocking people so they wouldn’t see their postings. That’s a fair complaint. When there is no other venue to communicate or to get informed about things vital to them, it is perfectly fair to complain about that.

In this specific case, Twitter doesn’t provide an essential service and, if it did, that’d need to be regulated and forced to provide services in an equitable and fair way.

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

#137

Post by kranke155 »

_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.

Source? outside of course of Elon himself. This just seems like propaganda.

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

#138

Post by guhcampos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #114
guhcampos wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about serving them. They have already been served multiple times, refused to comply, got fined and refused to pay the fines. Pulling out their office was simply a means to avoid paying fines, that's all. There's no big motive there but cash. One can argue about the politics of this all day. There are political views to be discussed about the morality of the requests to ban accounts versus the morality of kee…

Not agreeing with the law is always a valid reason to disobey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience > Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law. If you believe the law is immoral, then break the law a…

Civil disobedience is fine for citizens.

Companies are not citizens.

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

#139

Post by marcinzm »

anon291 wrote: post #122
marcinzm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> doesn't make political decisions.

Twitter is made of people and owned by people who use it to make political decisions. That was the case before Musk and is still the case after Musk.

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

#140

Post by sickofparadox »

kranke155 wrote: post #3

Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.

I can't believe that no one has mentioned that one of those accounts is a sitting Brazilian Senator.
Post reply on HN