61–70 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, they were the ones burning books. I'd like to keep them prohibited from openly defending their ideology online or offline. If you're a Nazi the only place you belong is in a prison cell.
I support free speech. Please send the cops to my address for mere words that I said.
Why Elon didn't use the same strategy with China?
Sure, it makes technically harder to block.. But governments don't rely only technical solutions for problems..
China, like Brazil is doing, would order Cloudflare to block Twitter and they would have to choose either comply and help China block it, like they are doing in Brazil, or challenge and not comply and face the consequences and likely a full block..
Having Cloudflare fully blocked in both countries would be terrible for business as they have many other customers so it is economically best to comply and potentially loose one customer then challenge the order and loose the entire market..
It's really interesting that CloudFlare accepted X (Twitter) as a client knowing the fights Musk gets into.
We really need to avoid a future where censorship is regarded as a virtue and monopolized transit providers are "cancelled" or shamed into being the judge/jury/executioner. The far better solution is just to ignore stuff you don't agree with, go outside, and move on with life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is not a law set in stone, in the US you can be a Nazi without any legal repercussions, here in Brazil you cannot. I'd like to keep it that way.
Any infringement of free speech is a step toward hell. Brazil is breaking its own constitution and its judges are punishing legal representatives of X.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support free speech. Please send the cops to my address for mere words that I said.
Threaten to kill the president and the cops will arrive at your house for the words you say.
Only sociopaths and the weak minded solve their problems with force and violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then our Supreme Court will have to issue a legal order to Cloudflare, which has representatives in Brazil, to block X nation-wide. Blocking Cloudflare itself wouldn't make any sense as our country systems themselves would get hurt and I don't think Cloudflare will deny such order.
It's hard to see why Cloudflare would put themselves in this position if they're planning to back down when the order inevitably comes in. (Perhaps Twitter somehow did this without Cloudflare's cooperation - I wouldn't put that past them trying but I'd be surprised if it were possible.)
cloudflare offers a lot of self-service tools, which can and do allow customers that cloudflare doesn't want to service to use it until someone finds out (my favorite example is that, briefly, the foreign ministry of Iran briefly managed to register and activate properties on the service)
registering while only directing brazilian clients to cloudflare would be difficult using the standard method (setting your domain's nameservers to the cloudflare servers), but cloudflare's CNAME setup option only requires a TXT record. it's possible x.com did that by just paying for a business plan and never interacting with cloudflare staff
doing so for the _root_ record is a bit dicier, but as x.com operates its own nameservers they're probably able to handle the not-quite compliant fuckery necessary to CNAME the root: https://developers.cloudflare.com/dns/zone-setups/partial-se...
Looks like Cloudflare has already agreed to block Twitter in Brazil. https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/andreza-matais/2024/09/1...
The real question is whether is whether it is right for the judges of a country to block access to a service that the countries depend on. For instance in the UK the government can stop local media from publishing news that is considered libellous or defamatory, or may unjustly influence court cases, but they can't stop citizens from accessing that information if it is published in a news outlet outside the country.…
It's the Supreme Court , not some random small claims court. That needs to be taken into account.
The real question is whether is whether it is right for the judges of a country to block access to a service that the countries depend on. For instance in the UK the government can stop local media from publishing news that is considered libellous or defamatory, or may unjustly influence court cases, but they can't stop citizens from accessing that information if it is published in a news outlet outside the country.…
That's the point, they don't. There's nothing in the law for him to back his decisions. But we just hope for our senate to take action.