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

#71

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #55

AndrewStephens wrote: post #21

Personally I think that social media companies should be at least in part liable for content posted by their users. There is a tendency to treat social media as a mere conduit, like the post office, that should not be responsible for content but the post office doesn't decide who sees what or profits from advertising inserted into mail. I thought about this a few months ago and came up with this rant completely reaso…

I think it’s easy to implement this, but the flip side of making platforms responsible is that they become much more restrictive in what’s allowed to be discussed. They start banning topics preemptively, just to limit their exposure. And if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile. Then the same companies will be penalised in other jurisdictions for being overly censorious. There’s no way to…

> if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile

Maybe those topics shouldn't be discussed on general-purpose online forums?

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

#72

Post by cesarb » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

cvjcvjcvj wrote: post #61

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.

> The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible.

Even then, the detailed justification for each vote is interesting. Just the first one is nearly 200 pages, and presents the whole history of the discussion, mentions precedents from not only the country but also about related laws all over the world, explains what would be the consequences of this particular article being considered invalid (it's not a simple "make them liable", it's the removal of a specific article which prevented them from being liable, which means other articles still apply), and so on. This is much more detailed and nuanced than what a single six-paragraph article can tell. That's the reason I prefer to go to the source for things like that.

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

#73

Post by flenserboy » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:26 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.

Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allow commoners to post. Moderation is not enough, as unapproved things will always make it through the cracks.

The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent:

>The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones"

>argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best,

>it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice

>filtering of what is posted.

The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.

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

#74

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

cvjcvjcvj wrote: post #65

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.

The problem isn't that a child knows how to cut themselves, it's that they lack guidance in life teaching them why that is a dumb idea, or if too young to learn that, supervising them so that they don't.

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

#75

Post by orbisvicis » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

orbisvicis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In my mind @dang works for the community. I think my argument stands under such a hypothetical.

I didn't realize @dang was employed by Y Combinator.

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

#76

Post by saynay » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #58

saynay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't entirely true in all cases. Consider something like a live broadcast of a sporting event. If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all…

>If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live? Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their bro…

Of course, but that was my point. Even in traditional media, exceptions are made for factors outside the control of the publisher. User-generated content is, by definition, outside the control of the platform so there should be at least some exceptions made for it. Some mix of filtering, moderation, and content flagging are its form of "reasonable attempts" to moderate the platform.

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

#77

Post by diego_moita » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #69

diego_moita wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. It will depend on the specifics of each case: libel, incitement to violence, etc.

That's how it works for books, magazines, newspapers. That's why they have legal advisors to define the boundaries of what and how they can publish.

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

#78

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #4

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…

By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. The current POTUS, Donald J. Trump declared his admiration for the strong chinese response to the Tiananmen Square protests. * https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananme... * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump... ( and numerous other reports since his 1990 comments )

> By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China.

Yes it (or at least the presently ruling faction) absolutely wants that substantively, but with a White Christian nationalist rather than Communist rhetorical focus.

Not really the kind of “by that logic...” that is useful for rebutting the argument it targets.

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

#79

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:34 PM UTC

saynay wrote: post #60

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.

"Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant. Promoting the post with the longest title would be an "algorithmic boost", but clearly not editorial in any way. The most common forms of algorithms are just a function of the number of times people viewed it weighted against the age of the post; there is still no editorial slant there. Even recommendations algorithms like YouTube are mostly the…

> "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant

I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.

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

#80

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #70

matheusmoreira wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again. This "storming" amounted to little more than a protest.

If only that had been enough to fix things. I watched those judges censor political speech as "fake news" throughout the entire 2022 election. Then they showboated in public about how they had been personally responsible for the former president's defeat.