3 ms·

> I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent for that judge to block any account it sees fit The ruling was based on track re

> I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent for that judge to block any account it sees fit The ruling was based on track records of conducting libel campaigns targetting anyone who could jeopardize Bolsonaro's political goals, not to mention supporting military coups to allow him to become president for life and silence any critic. And it seems you're missing the fact that the ruling specifically targets sock puppet accounts controlled by a couple of Bolsonaro Minions, such as the leader of Bolsonaro's party and one of Bolsonaro's main backer. The judge didn't based his decision on whims.

hu3 6y ago
The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. I couldn't care less about what said accounts were posting if they were protected by the 1st amendment. The problem here is the precedence of an overreach.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. It really isn't. ISPs are also required to cut access to illegal content. Facebook is a service provider that willingly provides access to illegal content, thus it is required to take it down. That's the whole point of the ruling.
  - hu3 6y ago
    Not sure I follow the logic. The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. There is no such thing as "only for now". Either it violates the law, or it doesn't. The court deemed that it breaks the law, thus the law should not continue to be broken. Hence the ruling. > The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide. The court determined that Facebook hosts content that violates the law. Therefore Facebook should remove the offending content. That's it.
      - hu3 6y ago
        The #Brazilian# court deemed that it breaks the law. As far as I know no other court addressed the matter so far. Facebook argues that content should only be taken down where it breaks the law, which is reasonable. Otherwise you'll see, for example, Facebook and Twitter silencing accounts of Turkish dictator Erdogan's opposition worldwide because that specific country deemed their speech to be illegal.

hu3 6y ago

The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. I couldn't care less about what said accounts were posting if they were protected by the 1st amendment. The problem here is the precedence of an overreach.

rumanator 6y ago
> The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law. It really isn't. ISPs are also required to cut access to illegal content. Facebook is a service provider that willingly provides access to illegal content, thus it is required to take it down. That's the whole point of the ruling.
- hu3 6y ago
  Not sure I follow the logic. The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > The content is illegal in Brazil only for now. There is no such thing as "only for now". Either it violates the law, or it doesn't. The court deemed that it breaks the law, thus the law should not continue to be broken. Hence the ruling. > The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide. The court determined that Facebook hosts content that violates the law. Therefore Facebook should remove the offending content. That's it.
    - hu3 6y ago
      The #Brazilian# court deemed that it breaks the law. As far as I know no other court addressed the matter so far. Facebook argues that content should only be taken down where it breaks the law, which is reasonable. Otherwise you'll see, for example, Facebook and Twitter silencing accounts of Turkish dictator Erdogan's opposition worldwide because that specific country deemed their speech to be illegal.