4 ms·

I think it is a fair comparison. Facebook isn't for free expression, they are for their business. The Brazilian Gov can be questioned in the Justice System, but

by neves 11y ago

I think it is a fair comparison. Facebook isn't for free expression, they are for their business. The Brazilian Gov can be questioned in the Justice System, but doing so against "Freedom". Facebook dubious position about the right to be informed and the desire to control the information we access is a greater menace to freedom of expression than any ignorant Brazilian lower judge.

Dylan16807 11y ago
Every business is there for themselves. But laws or rulings blocking access to any business are anti-freedom. It's pretty simple. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons that overcome that. But not with a simple communication channel.
- Loic 11y ago
  I don't know in which country you live, but I am very happy we have rulings here in Germany blocking access to businesses if those businesses are not following the law. WhatsApp, even if a US based company, is defacto providing a service in Brazil, it means they have to follow Brazilian laws. Dura Lex Sed Lex. You have more context on the other submission[0] showing that WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them. They preferred to go the "we are too big to be shut down" way, which is not the way the law works and then complain about freedom and democracy. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614116
  - renatopp 11y ago
    This may work well in Germany, but here in Brazil everything government does we feel it's due to corruption or incompetence - and most of the time, it is.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Blocking access should be a last resort, for businesses that are doing something extremely harmful. It's a consumer protection measure, not a punishment. If a business is breaking the law, you punish them with fines and the police, not by redirecting the mail/phone/packets directed at them. The citizens are the ones initiating contact with WhatsApp servers. They're the ones really being blocked here. Even though they've done nothing wrong. > WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them. Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago?
    - Ntrails 11y ago
      >Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago? You go to court and explain it's impossible. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing is a poor strategy and deserves to be punished.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        If you've never been to the country, ignoring a court summons sounds like a sane idea to me.
- neves 11y ago
  Here in Brazil, if you have a store, you can't refuse to sell to me because I'm gay, black, woman or any other motive. Business aren't entitled to do everything that are better for their business.
rmc 11y ago
> Facebook isn't for free expression That is literally the opposite of what Zuck, the founder and CEO of Facebook said in this article: "the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy"

by neves 11y ago

Dylan16807 11y ago

Every business is there for themselves. But laws or rulings blocking access to any business are anti-freedom. It's pretty simple. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons that overcome that. But not with a simple communication channel.

Loic 11y ago
I don't know in which country you live, but I am very happy we have rulings here in Germany blocking access to businesses if those businesses are not following the law. WhatsApp, even if a US based company, is defacto providing a service in Brazil, it means they have to follow Brazilian laws. Dura Lex Sed Lex. You have more context on the other submission[0] showing that WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them. They preferred to go the "we are too big to be shut down" way, which is not the way the law works and then complain about freedom and democracy. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614116
- renatopp 11y ago
  This may work well in Germany, but here in Brazil everything government does we feel it's due to corruption or incompetence - and most of the time, it is.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Blocking access should be a last resort, for businesses that are doing something extremely harmful. It's a consumer protection measure, not a punishment. If a business is breaking the law, you punish them with fines and the police, not by redirecting the mail/phone/packets directed at them. The citizens are the ones initiating contact with WhatsApp servers. They're the ones really being blocked here. Even though they've done nothing wrong. > WhatsApp had way enough time to take the requests of the judge into account and act on them. Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago?
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    >Sure they had time, but the request was physically impossible. What is supposed to happen if a judge demands a picture of you eating breakfast 8 days ago? You go to court and explain it's impossible. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing is a poor strategy and deserves to be punished.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      If you've never been to the country, ignoring a court summons sounds like a sane idea to me.
neves 11y ago
Here in Brazil, if you have a store, you can't refuse to sell to me because I'm gay, black, woman or any other motive. Business aren't entitled to do everything that are better for their business.

rmc 11y ago

> Facebook isn't for free expression That is literally the opposite of what Zuck, the founder and CEO of Facebook said in this article: "the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy"