Live data from Hacker News

Brazilian court orders suspension of X

theguardian.com

351–360 of 388 posts

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#351
Not my words by an accurate statement:

"A Brazilian judge tells Elon that he has to block certain users of X. Elon says no. The judge says that he will then put X's legal representative in Brazil in jail. Elon closes the offices in Brazil. The judge says that he has to have a legal representative in Brazil, that is what the law says. Elon says "if I name another representative you will put him in jail". Then the judge orders X to be blocked in Brazil. And he threatens to fine those who try to use X in Brazil through VPNs. In other words, users who easily use X in Brazil to see memes become potential criminals when they did nothing illegal.

It's crazy. It's an abuse of authority. Because let's suppose that Carlinho Da Souza calls for burning all the kids alive, the one who commits a crime (let's suppose) is Carlinho, and Justice should be focused on him, not on the company that provides its platform without knowing beforehand that Carlinho is an idiot, and even knowing it later from his posts. And you shouldn't demand that the company prevent Carlinho from exposing his stupidity, that would be like telling the cell phone company not to let me talk on the phone because I threatened to break someone's face. And then, since the company says no, it won't prevent me from talking on the phone, then it blocks the cell phone signal throughout the country, for everyone.

Freedom of expression is being able to say what you want and take responsibility for the consequences. But the consequences are for the alleged offender, not for people who have nothing to do with it.

To make another cheap analogy, if someone stabs a neighbor, you can't ban knives and force butchers to cut meat with their teeth."

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X is not communications technology. It's a forum website controlled by a private company. It's not like they're a protocol or that they're infrastructure.

X is the site I was referring to. Virtual Private Networking is the communications technology I was talking about. Banning VPN's is what's shocking here.

Ok I misunderstood you. We’re in agreement then!

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#353
post #182

This is a very, very sad day for the Internet. Unfortunately, you can expect that every app and every platform will get localized and blocking will be normalized. Soon TikTok will be blocked in the USA. I expect this to serve as an example and an avalanche to follow across the globe. Blocking a platform for alleged crimes committed the by operator or participants is a punishment for all the users. It’s ridiculous but…

How are you going to prove that TikTok is an intelligence and Psyop arm the PLA? The CCP does not respond to discovery in court cases of adversary nations.

If don't have any proof why block it then? Is this North Korea?

Anyway, if the US has suspicion of PLA working with TikTok and IMHO the should be suspicious, they can regulate how data is collected or how algorithms work and require mechanism that allows that be verified.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#354
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such. It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not. This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM. This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition…

Harriet Tubman was a criminal too. Sometimes being a criminal by defying an unjust law is the best thing you can do.

Civil disobedience is something an individual can can do. That's something very different to this situation. The company isn't a person, the CEO could do civil disobedience and order that the company doesn't comply. But that'd be the same as exiting the market, as the government will be forced to take action anyway. And then they'd likely go to jail, achieving nothing.

You can't really do civil disobedience while everyone is looking at you, the way to do that is in secret.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did NOT violate the law. How come he is deleting the VPN apps on my phone??? That I need to remote to my overseas job??? How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job?

Things deemed illegal or not compliant by a jurisdictional entity often have negative consequences for others. Most legal judgements are blunt swords. Fairness is seldom considered. I'm not agreeing with the outcomes here. Just pointing out laws get enforced, if they don't they aren't laws.

There is no "fake news" law. One was proposed and rejected by our representatives. Then the judge-king published a resolution of sorts which basically rammed the law through anyway.

Brazilian constitution says:

> Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited

What he's doing is censorship, plain and simple. And it's unconstitutional.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where/How does The Guardian article conflict with X's statement?

It lays out the reasons for the dispute in several paragraphs, there is no mention of what was claimed, but reasonable representation of both sides position: "The Brazilian supreme court has ordered that X be suspended in the country after the social media platform failed to meet a deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country." "The dispute began in April, when Moraes ordered the suspension of dozens of…

I have recently learned more about this. As I understand it goes something like this.

The legal representative of a foreign company in Brazil is expected to be legally responsible for the actions of the company in Brazil. This seems to make sense as Brazil probably thinks having individuals be personally liable for company actions to improves alignment with local laws and gives Brazil more leverage over otherwise exceptionally powerful global organizations.

However my understanding of "Legal Representative" is the North American understanding. A lawyer who is representing the company and not liable for the companies actions (those would be the directors).

I think these articles would do well to add this clarification as threatening to in-prison, and freezing the accounts of a lawyer representing a client in court is wild.

Doing the same thing to a person with direct legal liability is a little more sane.

I suspect The Guardian and X's accounts are both correct and it comes down to the expectation of the Legal Representative in the Brazilian system.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#357
post #304
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being a democracy does not guarantee that everything you do is correct

Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such. It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not. This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM. This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition…

It has to be case by case assessment of whether the law is just & right. We have a moral obligation to not follow - to practice civil disobedience - against unjust laws.

Banning vpns is a bridge to far for me. The state is placing itself too far above the people, demanding control which it is not entitled to, dictating how we might think & connect.

Letting a state grow ever more vicious in its enforcement, letting it cut itself off from the world & punish its citizens by denying them access to the internet & technologies that the rest of the world enjoys is their own real power, is the economic-military control they have, if they want to go to war with businesses. That's all they have for power. And it makes them look dumb, shows them to be bullies, and hurts their people.

We need some states to get uppity, so it becomes more clear that the Internet doesn't care & that states can do what they want, ban what they want, and the rest of the world will keep moving along. That's exactly what's happening here, and the state is, in my view, making an absurd fool of itself by going so absurdly far in desperation to try to apply the law. Fucking with the app stores just to drive home a grudge match with one service is fucking ludicrous & we should laugh out ass off at these fools.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#358
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such. It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not. This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM. This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition…

They're essentially saying that they don't want the US 1st amendment imported into their state. So they should block it like they have and that be that. Poor bastards.

big stretch, this is only twitter, and with plenty of reasoning, history, and back and forward, where twitter has time after time ignored brazillian's court requests.

Re: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

#359
post #226
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet China would be happy to help. It also cracks me up that people on this site were almost entirely in favor of a TikTok ban, but when it’s someone else’s government doing what amounts to the same thing then they’re “heading down a dark path”. Could folks please make up their minds and not treat the US as though it’s exempt from the “dark paths”?

Pretty simple explanation: US good, rest bad. January 8th in Brazil - "troubled Southern American country", "broken democracy", "banana republic" January 6th in the US - just a blip in the world's most perfect democracy. etc.

US media in a nutshell: https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/460629937/our-blessed-homel...
Post reply on HN