In Brazil, a Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to impose fines on people and companies that violate the law. In this case, federal law #12.965.
- "How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say?"
This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."
The right of an individual human to read what some individual account on a media platform wrote is a core civil right, and should be inviolate. It stands alone and apart from whatever other wrongs the platform is involved in.
The modern zeitgeist isn't merely burning books; it's burning down magnificent libraries of books in order to spite approximately five of them.
They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone, but the apps would be gone from the stores, which does not make it much less of a bullshit.
Restricting access to X makes sense: the platform has removed themselves from the country, making it impossible to resolve legal and financial disputes in Brazil, so it makes sense they are not allowed to operate in the country anymore.
Then again, punishing users that access it through other means is baffling.
> 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?
Because the other party did violate the law. Unfortunately, Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue who likes to pick fights, and you and your neighbor are suffering the consequences of that. He doesn't care about you in the least, and you should be wary about asking your government to pick up the slack for his egotism as it would just position him to further ignore or exploit you and your community.
(The broader VPN ban is admittedly another thing, though.)
There job is to interpret and implement the law. So they should never do as they please but ensure the law is enforced.
Sometimes that's conjunction with a jury or as a panel of judges. Those scenarios involve voting or consensus. But not all judgements are made this way.
Decisions can be appealed or challenged by higher courts.
virgulino|1 year ago
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?
NomDePlum|1 year ago
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.
perihelions|1 year ago
This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."
The right of an individual human to read what some individual account on a media platform wrote is a core civil right, and should be inviolate. It stands alone and apart from whatever other wrongs the platform is involved in.
The modern zeitgeist isn't merely burning books; it's burning down magnificent libraries of books in order to spite approximately five of them.
guhcampos|1 year ago
Restricting access to X makes sense: the platform has removed themselves from the country, making it impossible to resolve legal and financial disputes in Brazil, so it makes sense they are not allowed to operate in the country anymore.
Then again, punishing users that access it through other means is baffling.
swatcoder|1 year ago
> How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job?
Because the other party did violate the law. Unfortunately, Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue who likes to pick fights, and you and your neighbor are suffering the consequences of that. He doesn't care about you in the least, and you should be wary about asking your government to pick up the slack for his egotism as it would just position him to further ignore or exploit you and your community.
(The broader VPN ban is admittedly another thing, though.)
pmdr|1 year ago
NomDePlum|1 year ago
Sometimes that's conjunction with a jury or as a panel of judges. Those scenarios involve voting or consensus. But not all judgements are made this way.
Decisions can be appealed or challenged by higher courts.
cassianoleal|1 year ago
Pedro_Ribeiro|1 year ago