Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content • Hacker News Board

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#61

Post by cvjcvjcvj » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #45

I always like going to the source for things like that. As the article mentioned, the voting hasn't concluded yet. This article has a link to the seven votes so far, with the full explanation for each one: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-anal...

You are wrong, sorry.

The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. With only 11 justices, even if the remaining four voted against, the majority would still be maintained (6 votes vs. 5).

But there’s only one more fascist judge left on the bench, so the final tally will end up 9 to 2. The decision is final.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#62

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #42

matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reaction would be glorious but I doubt it's going to happen. Too much money at stake. They're likely to just accept it, just like they accept chinese control. Brazil wants to become like China. One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. It's quite terrifying. Donald Trump has been threatening sanctions against these people for a while now. What's he w…

> Brazil wants to become like China. Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia: reduce every sensible discussion to a leftist conspiracy. > One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. Sure. And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. Because no one lies in WhatsApp, right?

> Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia

Nobody mentioned Bolsonaro. He's history.

> And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true.

You don't have to take it from me. Here's a top Google search result:

https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admi...

"We are admirers of the chinese regime."

Take it up with whoever wrote that article if you disagree. Either way, refrain from replying to my comments in the future. I really have no inclination to engage with sarcastic "WhatsApp uncle" arguments.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#63

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

atrus wrote: post #49

ty6853 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USPS scans your mails and then includes advertising with this scans when you get the feed in informed delivery.

Yes, but the advertising images are directly related (a T-mobile mailpiece gets a T-mobile png)

I'm definitely not saying it's the same as facebook, but it's an example of content curation based on 3rd party input. Selective advertising reaches a place of prominence, ty6853 doesn't get a special image when I send a letter to Santa.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#64

Post by orbisvicis » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

orbisvicis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how this would apply to hacker news? Not all algorithmic bias is evil. If you want to avoid an echo chamber, design an algorithm to boost interesting content that missed the front page. That shouldn't render you vulnerable to legislation. And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches…

> how this would apply to hacker news? HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. > would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies If it were post…

> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.

It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state.

Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally.

> If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.

To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#65

Post by cvjcvjcvj » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

akoboldfrying wrote: post #2

It will be really interesting to watch how this unfolds. My hypothesis: Meta, X et al. will threaten to just wholesale IP-block the country (not worth the risk), and it will become a game of Chicken. Side note: The density of ads on that page is almost impressive.

Here’s an analogy: If a radio station or TV channel taught a child to cut themselves, self-harm, or drink toilet water, that broadcaster would be held accountable.

So how can we allow social media platforms to escape responsibility? Children are dying.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#66

Post by saynay » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #16

flenserboy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, could citizens find a platform willing to allow them to share their opinions, creations, and find the like-minded?

Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment? I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.

It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person.

Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

orbisvicis wrote: post #64

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how this would apply to hacker news? HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. > would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies If it were post…

> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state. Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally. >…

> It is the editorial standard of the community not the company

Passive moderation, i.e. upvoting and downvoting, is a standard of the community's. Active moderation, e.g. @dang removing a comment, is a standard of the company.

> Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet?

We passed that turn-off a decade ago.

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#68

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

ufo wrote: post #40

For context, it's useful to remind that after the last presidential election, Brazil withstood a coup attempt similar to USA's January 6th. Since then, the courts have taken a tougher stance against social media, including a country-wide blockage of X/Twitter last year. We can expect that social media companies will lobby against this. In Brazil they find allies in the far-right which are also interested in moderatio…

The real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself. Judges have always been "gods" in this country, and the supreme court in particular has been blatantly grabbing power since at least 2019.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#69

Post by bethekidyouwant » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #46

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #33

Who decides what you are allowed to say or see?

You are confusing "being liable" with censorship. They're not the same thing, if you care to know. The first is about accountability, about being responsible for the consequences of one's acts. The second is preemptive coercion and is indeed a tyrant's basic tool.

Who decides which actions have said consequences for which someone is liable?

Re: Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

#70

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #68

ufo wrote: post #40

For context, it's useful to remind that after the last presidential election, Brazil withstood a coup attempt similar to USA's January 6th. Since then, the courts have taken a tougher stance against social media, including a country-wide blockage of X/Twitter last year. We can expect that social media companies will lobby against this. In Brazil they find allies in the far-right which are also interested in moderatio…

The real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself. Judges have always been "gods" in this country, and the supreme court in particular has been blatantly grabbing power since at least 2019. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423

> real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself

The side that storms the capital sort of gives up its ability to call the other illegitimate in a democracy.

That doesn't mean they're right. Just that the situtation in Brazil clearly escalated to the point that suspending the status quo is if not merited, highly historically precedented.