3 ms·

Ad absurdum. They may very well ignore brazilian justice. It is their choice. What they can't do is to ignore brazilian justice and continue to operate in the

by soneca 10y ago

Ad absurdum. They may very well ignore brazilian justice. It is their choice. What they can't do is to ignore brazilian justice and continue to operate in the country.

bubbleRefuge 10y ago
Pelo amor de deus cara! Who looses here is the Brazilian public where WhatsApp use is ubiquitous. This is like the reciprocal visa requirements that Brazil imposes on US visitors(making it harder for Americans to spend their dollars in Brazil). This is the Brazilian Government wanting to flex their muscles in front of the Gringos while the public suffers yet again from Ivory tower policies totally disconnected from reality on the ground.
- cocotino 10y ago
  I remember WhatsApp was blocked once in Brazil for refusing to hand out data on a drug smuggler... Taking into account Brazil is an oversized drug cartel, yes, doing that was "to be disconnected from reality".
  - segmondy 10y ago
    First they start with the drug smugglers, ... No, really, this has always been the means, we are going after "criminals" and once that is possible, then it's everybody else.
    - morganvachon 10y ago
      The flipside is to slowly criminalize everyday activity. I've seen that trend in the US (apart from the decriminalization of marijuana, which I'm still surprised by). As an example, here in Georgia you can theoretically be ticketed for going too slow and too fast at the same time; traffic law says don't impede the flow of traffic, even if said traffic is going 20+ over the limit. So if you're going 5 over and everyone else is going 20 over, you're at risk of getting both tickets. I realize that traffic infractions are not what most consider crimes, but it scales to misdemeanor and even felony offenses as well. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/crimi...
- whatever_dude 10y ago
  > wanting to flex their muscles It's exactly what this is. Trying to show off and make people bend over backwards. Sad that it usually works with less fortunate people and companies that can be swallowed by a mountain of bureaucracy and undecipherable legalese. That a company is standing up for it should be cause for celebration.
irae 10y ago
That's not entirely true. OK, the Brazilian government can block them of being a legal entity in Brazil, but they can't block an international web-service. Unless Brazil is now like China and North Korea and want to control every citizen internet use. This is totally against net-neutrality discussions and ethics I ever read.
themartorana 10y ago
Sure they can. Insomuch as they already don't operate "in" Brazil, but traffic to and from WhatsApp international servers does originate and terminate in Brazil. Unless WhatsApp traffic is explicitly denied at the ISP level (this order) their packets can float all over Brazil without say-so. That's the Internet, baby.
andrewflnr 10y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form, not a fallacy. It's an alias for proof by contradiction. If you think it's inapplicable in this case, explain why, but don't expect quoting the name to have any effect on people.

by soneca 10y ago

Ad absurdum. They may very well ignore brazilian justice. It is their choice. What they can't do is to ignore brazilian justice and continue to operate in the country.

bubbleRefuge 10y ago

Pelo amor de deus cara! Who looses here is the Brazilian public where WhatsApp use is ubiquitous. This is like the reciprocal visa requirements that Brazil imposes on US visitors(making it harder for Americans to spend their dollars in Brazil). This is the Brazilian Government wanting to flex their muscles in front of the Gringos while the public suffers yet again from Ivory tower policies totally disconnected from reality on the ground.

cocotino 10y ago
I remember WhatsApp was blocked once in Brazil for refusing to hand out data on a drug smuggler... Taking into account Brazil is an oversized drug cartel, yes, doing that was "to be disconnected from reality".
- segmondy 10y ago
  First they start with the drug smugglers, ... No, really, this has always been the means, we are going after "criminals" and once that is possible, then it's everybody else.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    The flipside is to slowly criminalize everyday activity. I've seen that trend in the US (apart from the decriminalization of marijuana, which I'm still surprised by). As an example, here in Georgia you can theoretically be ticketed for going too slow and too fast at the same time; traffic law says don't impede the flow of traffic, even if said traffic is going 20+ over the limit. So if you're going 5 over and everyone else is going 20 over, you're at risk of getting both tickets. I realize that traffic infractions are not what most consider crimes, but it scales to misdemeanor and even felony offenses as well. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/crimi...
whatever_dude 10y ago
> wanting to flex their muscles It's exactly what this is. Trying to show off and make people bend over backwards. Sad that it usually works with less fortunate people and companies that can be swallowed by a mountain of bureaucracy and undecipherable legalese. That a company is standing up for it should be cause for celebration.

irae 10y ago

That's not entirely true. OK, the Brazilian government can block them of being a legal entity in Brazil, but they can't block an international web-service. Unless Brazil is now like China and North Korea and want to control every citizen internet use. This is totally against net-neutrality discussions and ethics I ever read.

themartorana 10y ago

Sure they can. Insomuch as they already don't operate "in" Brazil, but traffic to and from WhatsApp international servers does originate and terminate in Brazil. Unless WhatsApp traffic is explicitly denied at the ISP level (this order) their packets can float all over Brazil without say-so. That's the Internet, baby.

andrewflnr 10y ago

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form, not a fallacy. It's an alias for proof by contradiction. If you think it's inapplicable in this case, explain why, but don't expect quoting the name to have any effect on people.