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

#81

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

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #29

diggan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.

>Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It'…

> Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.

That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.

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

#82

Post by ty6853 » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #72

cvjcvjcvj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have no idea how Brazil courts work. In the US the supreme court often has 200 page opinion full of high-IQ hot air, which all sound very nice and nuanced. But in practice they know damn well what they're really doing is a long wink and a nod and then they just deny cert anytime the lower courts do their real bidding because they know everything they wrote was bullshit and they don't want to have to hold themselves to it, the point was just to keep up appearances while rolling out the red carpet.

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

#83

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:39 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #80

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again

Brazil also has a history of military coups, something that mob explicitly sought to provoke [1]. It makes sense for the system to learn from past failings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...

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

#84

Post by nindalf » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #71

nindalf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even today YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. These are terrible things which we'd like to see less of, but we can't discuss how to make things better without discussing them at all.

If we force videos to avoid mentioning that could offend anyone anywhere, we're not going to be able to discuss very much at all.

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

#85

Post by defrost » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:45 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #78

defrost wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that is useful for discretion the argument it targets.

dissecting? discussing?

It serves to make a reader ponder whether an individual (judge or POTUS) sets the mood of an entire country (does Brazil or the US 'want' what a judge or POTUS wants?) and reminds us that the current US administration admires strongarm tactics.

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

#86

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:46 PM UTC

diego_moita wrote: post #77

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law.

The supreme court has decided that the court order requirement for removing content is unconstitutional.

There is no "after the fact investigation and due process" anymore. Platforms are now expected to police themselves or face arbitrary fines.

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

#87

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:53 PM UTC

diggan wrote: post #81

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It'…

> Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd…

With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it.

If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.

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

#88

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

matheusmoreira wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again Brazil also has a history of military coups, something that mob explicitly sought to provoke [1]. It makes sense for the system to learn from past failings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...

Not a problem. They wanted to be ruled by the military. That's a valid political stance which should not be censored.

A military coup is attempted when armed forces actually show up to overthrow you. When the heroic brazilian military showed up, it was to arrest the protesters.

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

#89

Post by atrus » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

ty6853 wrote: post #63

atrus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's buying a service. They aren't curating, they're taking anyones money and sending anything that fits in their guidelines. There's nothing stopping you from displaying your image to a bunch of people.

https://www.usps.com/business/informed-delivery.htm

The image that goes with the mail is required even.

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

#90

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 3:00 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #88

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again Brazil also has a history of military coups, something that mob explicitly sought to provoke [1]. It makes sense for the system to learn from past failings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...

Not a problem. They wanted to be ruled by the military. That's a valid political stance which should not be censored. A military coup is attempted when armed forces actually show up to overthrow you. When the heroic brazilian military showed up, it was to arrest the protesters.

> Not a problem. They wanted to be ruled by the military. That's a valid political stance which should not be censored.

Wat.

(EDIT: Sure? In a country with a history of not managing this well, however, it’s also dangerous. When manifested as a riot, that danger becomes clear and present.)

> it was to arrest the protesters who were begging the military on their knees to save them

Rioters who broke into the federal buildings housing each branch of the Brazilian state…

I appreciate your directness. But respectfully, I don’t think there is anything this Supreme Court could do that would meet your approval, or vice versa, those “protesters” which would find your judgement.