WhatsApp is back online in Brazil

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:08 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #103

twoarray wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark Zuckerberg "urged" Brazilians to tell Congress to "ban bans of online services" in the name of democracy. Am I an irrational nationalist for believing he shouldn't get into the politics of any country (especially outside of the US)? Last time someone tried to help us (Brazilians), we got a military dictatorship.

Oh but this isn't even the first time. See this: http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/5/9099897/facebook-india-inte... Facebook put up a banner for Indian users to try to influence the passing of a law to allow Facebook to break net neutrality in India. Acts like these aren't limited to communications companies though. American multinationals have a tendency to exploit poor underdeveloped countries, like Papua New Guinea,…

Post by rmc » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:15 AM UTC

guiporto wrote: post #53

lucb1e wrote: post #46

> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy Says the person (in name of the company, I assume) whose company blocks things they don't "like", such as messages containing telegram.org or telegram.me[1]. Now Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it s…

> Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it should run its judicial system Yeah, Facebook is a company - not a country. You can't compare apples to oranges. Facebook can do whatever it want and people are free to chose to use it service or not. Brazilians had no choice on this case.

Post by yAnonymous » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:39 AM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #62

lucb1e wrote: post #46

> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy Says the person (in name of the company, I assume) whose company blocks things they don't "like", such as messages containing telegram.org or telegram.me[1]. Now Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it s…

There is a huge difference between "the government of Brazil denying everyone the freedom to communicate the way they want" and "facebook not auto-linking to a competitor's site in a chat program." You're comparing a government making communication through a specific (and popular) channel illegal, and a company not providing a link to a website as they send your message to your recipient. I know Hacker News enjoys ge…

Post by CaptainZapp » Wed, May 04, 2016, 8:17 AM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #107

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between "the government of Brazil denying everyone the freedom to communicate the way they want" and "facebook not auto-linking to a competitor's site in a chat program." You're comparing a government making communication through a specific (and popular) channel illegal, and a company not providing a link to a website as they send your message to your recipient. I know Hacker News enjoys ge…

Different different but same. Countries generally can ban certain forms of communication. To contrieve a couple of examples you can have freedom of speak and still not be allowed to shout outdoors at night in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Or send smoke signals there. And Facebook don't have to prioritise ads from competitors (I think). That said, banning certain, non-harmful links in user-to-user communica…

  That said, banning certain, non-harmful links in user-to-user communication or a whole class of non-disturbing communication comes off as extremely bad form to be.

Post by microtonal » Wed, May 04, 2016, 8:26 AM UTC

ma2rten wrote: post #27

antisthenes wrote: post #13

Out of curiosity, what did Brazil use before WhatsApp existed? It seems strange to me that 1 app can capture such an overwhelming majority, because it's just a client, of which there have always been dozens if not hundreds.

It's not surprising to me that there is only one app used by the majority of people. That is called the network effect. But why is it WhatsApp? It's very frictionless. WhatsApp is a drop-in replacement for SMS. You don't make an account. You just download the app, import your phonebook and start messaging people who are also on WhatsApp. It's SMS except it's free, not more not less. My parents (not from Brazil) are o…