5 ms·
> 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. ISP
by 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 agoNot 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 agoThe #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.