3 ms·
> ISPs comply on a national level. Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers
by rumanator 6y ago
> ISPs comply on a national level.
Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers if their service violates the law.
Facebook's service is breaking the law, thus the court determined it should not. That's the point.
- hu3 6y agoActually, you're wrong. Facebook strives to comply on a national level only whenever possible. Here's an article about it: https://www.mic.com/articles/87515/if-you-live-in-one-of-these-13-countries-your-facebook-newsfeed-is-being-censored https://www.mic.com/articles/87515/if-you-live-in-one-of-the...
- rumanator 6y agoSomehow you missed the fact that Facebook complied with the ruling made by Brazil's court. https://time.com/5874695/facebook-blocks-accounts-worldwide/ https://time.com/5874695/facebook-blocks-accounts-worldwide/ Seems to me that, yet again, a service provider complies with court rulings requesting that illegal content should be taken down.
- hu3 6y agoPlease don't assume anyone on HN haven't read the linked article. It lowers the qualitty of discussions and is against guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Given I've quoted the article before on this thread, I can only assume you're acting in bad faith when insinuating I haven't read the article. With that said, as the article states, Facebook temporarily complied only after the judge increased the sentence with a threat of imprisioning staff. Facebook is paying lawyers out their own pockets to appeal as per article: > "Given the threat of criminal liability to a local employee, at this point we see no other alternative than complying with the decision by blocking the accounts globally, while we appeal to the Supreme Court," it said.