Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

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

#131

Post by EasyMark »

thrance wrote: post #99

Censorship is no longer the tool of choice of wannabe dictators. Instead, the focus is now on editorializing of communication channels. Open up the front page of X in a private tab, and see how everything is far right propaganda. Who needs to censor anything anymore? Simply downrank whatever displeases you into oblivion. Good for Brazil, maybe they can slow down the fascist disease that rots our democracies from the…

I think they can rely on the general lack of critical thinking skills in the general populace as more effective than constraining information. who have been taught to trust what they read, unless it is dead obvious that what they're reading is fiction (like a novel or comic book). All they have to do is flood social media with propaganda and drown out any truth to be found there. It's a very popular tactic on X around election time.

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

#132

Post by ufo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #127
ufo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> continuing to argue with the fascist won't be a productive use of your time They’re informed, coherent and seem to honestly hold their views. I’m genuinely curious about what they have to say, even if I wouldn’t want their policy prescription for my own country.

It's frustrating for me to see this discussion thread being taken over by dozens of comments filled with fascist lies, and being reminded that there are still nutjobs out there actively plotting to overthrow our democracy. If you really do want to learn more about the Brazilian far-right, there are probably better sources out there than drinking straight out of the fake-news hose.

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

#133

Post by matheusmoreira »

ufo wrote: post #132
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continuing to argue with the fascist won't be a productive use of your time They’re informed, coherent and seem to honestly hold their views. I’m genuinely curious about what they have to say, even if I wouldn’t want their policy prescription for my own country.

It's frustrating for me to see this discussion thread being taken over by dozens of comments filled with fascist lies, and being reminded that there are still nutjobs out there actively plotting to overthrow our democracy. If you really do want to learn more about the Brazilian far-right, there are probably better sources out there than drinking straight out of the fake-news hose.

Brazil is not a democracy. Not a single brazilian citizen voted for the judge-kings who are now running the country. It's as much a democracy as North Korea. Plus, there's censorship, and censorship equals dictatorship. It's that simple.

It's equally frustrating for me when I see the exact same talking points every single thread. It's fine if you don't want to debate the issue. Nobody's forcing you to reply. Do refrain from calling me names though.

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

#134

Post by matheusmoreira »

cassianoleal wrote: post #126
matheusmoreira wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's sad, not funny. Supreme court judges are not elected. They don't even have to pass tests.

> They don't even have to pass tests. That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.

By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that.

Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.

Just yet another example of how backwards this country is.

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

#135

Post by matheusmoreira »

owebmaster wrote: post #128
matheusmoreira wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They gotta follow the constitution. No, they don't. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. Whatever they write on a paper becomes law, simply because police enforces it. The fact they weren't and aren't following the constitution was a major cause of January 8th. Censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, especially that of a political nature. And political censorship is exactly what they…

I'm glad the people that think like you are a tiny minority that is being persecuted and answering for the crimes. The supreme court never worked better.

I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens.

I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.

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

#136

Post by owebmaster »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #135
owebmaster wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad the people that think like you are a tiny minority that is being persecuted and answering for the crimes. The supreme court never worked better.

I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens. I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.

> I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology.

pretty much the opposite: when the same STF changed laws to put Lula in jail, I did not supported people that wanted to overthrow the rule of law. You do. Now. But at the time you were in favor of the same supreme court change the law in favor of your ideology, which removed Lula from the election that he was leading.

> I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone.

Do you think you have it hard? That this is some kind of torture? The same people that worship coronel Ustra?

> Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.

You should not be imprisoned for your thoughts. But corrupt politicians and criminals should not be protected by unrestricted free speech.

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

#137

Post by cassianoleal »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #134
cassianoleal wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't even have to pass tests. That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.

By "tests" I meant concurso público . There isn't a good English term for that. Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable abo…

> By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that.

Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs.

The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead.

> Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test.

Some of the supreme court justices might have not passed admission tests for jobs they were not interested in but that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law.

> Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.

No doubt it's possible but I find some of the foundational premises of your chain of causation to be misguided at best.

If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro who can't follow simple logic and has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how the Brazilian Civil Law system differs from his FBI training on Common Law concepts and strategies?

One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled because it was so full of vices that Cracolândia junkies seem productive and well adjusted in comparison.

Furthermore, you have complained in other comments that the justices are not elected. Leaving out any arguments around why that's the case, and why this is a desired feature of the system, how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? There are so many goalposts in your messages that it's very difficult to understand what you actually think could be any better than what's currently in place.

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

#138

Post by matheusmoreira »

owebmaster wrote: post #136
matheusmoreira wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens. I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.

> I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. pretty much the opposite: when the same STF changed laws to put Lula in jail, I did not supported people that wanted to overthrow the rule of law. You do. Now. But at the time you were in favor of the same supreme court change the law in favor of your ideology, which removed Lula from the election that he was leading. > I do h…

I only started keeping up with politics after Bolsonaro became president. So I'm afraid I don't remember which abuses, if any, were committed by courts at the time of Lula's imprisonment.

I don't doubt you. Feel free to elaborate on the matter if you'd like, in good faith.

I don't support "judicial activism" at all. Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written to each individual case, no more and no less. Any deviation from that is a power grab. In other words: judges must not legislate, that is the job of our elected representatives.

Any attempt from a judge to legislate is a small coup against the people. Actual lawyers have told me: "instead of applying the law, the surpreme court decided to legislate". This is normal in Brazil and it shouldn't be.

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

#139

Post by defrost »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #138
owebmaster wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. pretty much the opposite: when the same STF changed laws to put Lula in jail, I did not supported people that wanted to overthrow the rule of law. You do. Now. But at the time you were in favor of the same supreme court change the law in favor of your ideology, which removed Lula from the election that he was leading. > I do h…

I only started keeping up with politics after Bolsonaro became president. So I'm afraid I don't remember which abuses, if any, were committed by courts at the time of Lula's imprisonment. I don't doubt you. Feel free to elaborate on the matter if you'd like, in good faith. I don't support "judicial activism" at all. Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written to each individual case, no more a…

> Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less.

Law is not that simple and is full of tricky edge cases and outright vague ambiguity.

Lower Courts can easily rule to a clear letter of law as stated in a great many cases.

eg: Does evidence exist to prove a defendant broke into locked premises or not? Does a jury all agree that multiple pieces of submitted evidence are sufficient to establish a conclusion on balance despite all pieces of evidence having some issue?

High Courts and Supreme Courts exist to ponder whether lower courts have correctly applied the laws.

This would not be required if it were at all possible to have machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less.

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

#140

Post by matheusmoreira »

cassianoleal wrote: post #137
matheusmoreira wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "tests" I meant concurso público . There isn't a good English term for that. Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable abo…

> By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that. Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs. The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead. > Every other judge is a law…

> that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law

I disagree. I have far more confidence in judges who competed vigorously for their positions than in judges who were merely appointed by presidents.

> If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro

Every test has the potential for false positives and false negatives. We want to select good judges and reject bad judges. There is an inherent risk of selecting bad judges and rejecting good judges.

Of course, the exact statistics have never been determined. It's reasonable to assume that the tests optimize for low false positive rate. Rejecting good judges is not as bad as accepting a bad judge.

By reading court cases, I formed a very positive opinion of concursado judges. I've always found their argumentation to be lucid and persuasive, even when I didn't agree with their rulings. I simply can't say the same of the supreme court.

> One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled

That fact deeply disgusts me. It really does. I wish things had worked out differently.

> how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests?

It's not. I believe supreme court judges should also have to pass admission tests. That should be the one and only way to become a supreme court judge.

I claim the supreme court has amassed so much power it is now openly legislating. It's effectively running the country. These people are not elected representatives. Therefore, it follows that Brazil is not actually a democracy. That is the point I sought to make in this thread.

I don't actually want judges to be elected. I just think that's a requirement for Brazil to be called a democracy at this point in time. If we're a democracy, and judges hold all the power, then we should be able to vote for them.

The only reason I go out of my way to point out that these are unelected judges is to highlight the fact that Brazil is a democracy in name only.

Post reply on HN