Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does BlueSky have a legal representative in Brazil?
BlueSky don't have any justice issue. Because of this, don't need representative yet.
Give it a little time.
Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't seem to stop Twitter in India and Turkey.
The issue in Brazil, based on what I read, was that Twitter’s lawyers in Brazil and Elon believed that the requests being made violate Brazil’s constitution. In Turkey and India, there was no such concern.
[deleted]
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#103Apparently Brazil only asked for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) and ban like 7 accounts.
They threatened X employees with jail time. Bunch of reasonable folks these Brazilian judges.
Big Tech representatives have been jailed for failing to comply with judge orders. I remember those news... They were told to do things like wipe out a woman's nude pictures off of search results if not the entire internet. Judges even used their success against them. What do you mean it's hard? You're Google right? Maybe use your smart people and your trillions to figure out a way to comply?
In Brazil, Judges = Gods.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#104Note that Elon Musk's definition of free speech includes anything that is not outright illegal, including fake news, see links below. I find it disturbing. The world will be better off without X. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/us/politics/elon-musk-kam... https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-grok-ai-fake-elect...
Fake news according to whom? You? The government?
Brazilian government would get mercilessly fact checked on X pretty much every single time they posted anything. It was actually pretty funny. These people lie through their teeth about anything and everything. It comes naturally to them. I have videos of our current president admitting he makes up numbers on the spot when speaking in public. Yeah, these people just make stuff up, admit it and people still believe them. They say something stupid like "100 million brazilians are dying of hunger" and people eat it up.
Would you have us trust these clowns to tell fake from fact?
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also don’t want companies to have to have offices in every country where they operate. X is big enough but it’s silly of Brazil to require a literal physical presence. They can serve whatever they need electronically to wherever X is these days.
It may seem strange, at least to me, but the company Lumen Orbit (YCS24) [1] aims to offer data centers in space. If they, or another similar company, succeed in the future, it could change jurisdictional rules. [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/lumen-orbit
Their servers may be in space, but they'll still need to collect ad money from somewhere on Earth.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) ...and so they have someone to hold ~hostage~ responsible if something goes wrong >and ban like 7 accounts And you think they're going to stop there?
No, so what. It's their business what accounts are allowed under local law.
Just like these laws https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremb...
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
>for Twitter/X to have a local office (so they could be dealt with inside Brazilian law) ...and so they have someone to hold ~hostage~ responsible if something goes wrong >and ban like 7 accounts And you think they're going to stop there?
No, so what. It's their business what accounts are allowed under local law.
Local law says censorship is unconstitutional. It goes out of its way to spell out that on top of censorship being unconstitutional, political censorship is especially unconstitutional. That means it's super mega ultra unconstitutional.
That's the whole point, you know. We think this supreme court judge is violating the constitution by doing things like ordering the censorship of "fake news". These were political accounts engaged in speech of a political nature. They cannot be censored.
What do you do when the guy who's supposed to interpret and apply the constitution starts blatantly violating it? I have no idea. People actually tried asking the brazilian military to intervene. This guy called that an antidemocratic act despite the fact not one soul voted for him. Called it a coup attempt. Then he put those people in a gulag.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to read stuff written by other people is pretty close to a basic human right, though. At least in the liberal Western tradition.
I often can't read Twitter because I do not have account. Is my human right violated?
Accounts are free and easy to create, so it's your choice rather than a restriction on your rights.
You have a right to vote in your country, doesn't mean that you can demand they collect the vote in your bedroom and claim your rights are violated if they refuse.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#109Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company. If the company wants the product to be available, then it should respect local laws the same way it did in Turkey and India.
>Twitter is not a fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to a company. What about the rights of people who want to use twitter? Would you use the same characterization for Chinese censorship (ie. "The New York Times is not an fundamental right, as access to users isn't a right to [The New York Times Company]")?
> What about the rights of people who want to use twitter?
Interoperability should cover this. If the platform is barred from doing business in a given country, users should be able to download all their data and move it to another platform of their choice. People must not be made hostages of the platforms.
Re: Brazil Court votes unanimously to uphold X ban. Users switch to Threads, Bluesky
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to read stuff written by other people is pretty close to a basic human right, though. At least in the liberal Western tradition.
That’s why regulation should apply to services like that, the same way a private company should not be able to block a highway that is critical to the functioning of a country. Twitter since elon’s criminal “leadership” has become a bot-infested cesspool of racist bullshit, where he unilaterally censors whatever he dislikes in his sissy fits. In this form, this is a manipulation device, and good riddance.
> Twitter since elon’s criminal “leadership” has become a bot-infested cesspool of racist bullshit, where he unilaterally censors whatever he dislikes in his sissy fits. In this form, this is a manipulation device, and good riddance
If that is true then why do Biden, Kamala, the DNC, and most European politicians continue to post heavily on it?