24 ms·

Amazon rainforest plots sold via Facebook Marketplace ads

182 points by bbirnbaum 6y ago

1996 6y ago
I was wondering what the trick is, as selling a place without holding its title may not command a very high price, even if you clear it and make it ready for business - for cattle ranching in the case of the rainforest. Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation: > Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty. > Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land. > A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose. > The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims. If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible! > For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either. I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.
- kar5pt 6y ago
  How would blockchain land claims be enforced without a state backing them?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Presumably if someone is squatting your blockchain -land you call crypto police and they...?
    - 1996 6y ago
      You don't call anyone. You just publish their picture, name, phone number, and address. If they have done nothing wrong acquiring plots of jungle, they certainly have nothing to fear!! On the other hand, if the blockchain can show conclusively some ex-post reassignment of property rights, and whose corrupt official were responsible, maybe some heads will roll (and I mean that quite literally in South America!)
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex" Is geofencing the protected natural reserves is too much to ask? "name and shame of the land thieves." Huh? In Russia that doesn't help one bit, I can't imagine it would in Brazil.
- hshshs2 6y ago
  can we just stop shoehorning blockchain into everything
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Illegally sold, that’s the distinction the headline misses.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 6y ago
The Brazilian government doesn’t seem to care either.
- csomar 6y ago
  It's too expensive to enforce the law in the jungle. Also it doesn't bring any profit.
  - forinti 6y ago
    They would probably reconsider this if they calculated how much it will cost to not have the Amazon there. Rain in the southeast and central-west regions depend a lot on the Amazon.
  - EL_Loco 6y ago
    It's expensive, sure, but the money would be there if the government wasn't so innefficient and corrupt.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Which is honestly much worse.
tamaharbor 6y ago
I had a star named after me once.
spicyramen 6y ago
That's illegal, can't claim ownership
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Possession seems to be the law in more remote areas.
- tolbish 6y ago
  That's what indigenous people in the Americas thought before the Europeans came.
Ansil849 6y ago
> Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade. Huh? If the ads were for firearms or child slaves, would Facebook's response also be that it was ready to work with local authorities, but would not take independent action? So how can Facebook take this kind of flippant approach to this, but not on other items? The, not even hypocrisy, but just complete lack of fundamental human decency and respect is revolting.
- rriepe 6y ago
  Children and guns can be trafficked.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Selling children and guns (at least in most parts of the world) is just outright prohibited. Selling land isn't. You don't need to figure out whether it is an illegal or legal child sale as all child selling is illegal. Selling land in itself is not illegal.
  - hetspookjee 6y ago
    Its outright prohibited to sell illegal land as well. Facebook might also require a proof of ownership before allowing the sale.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      How do you verify proof of ownership? I have a “patta” indicating I own some land. There are only a few million people in the world who can even read the words on this document. There are only a few thousand who can understand the meaning behind those words. There are many a hundred who can verify if it’s a forgery or not. Meanwhile I doubt you can tell which part of the world it’s from based on just “patta” or looking at the document. It’s strange that multiple people on this thread have gone with “prostitution, slavery, sales of firearms don’t happen on online marketplaces, why should this?” It’s so obvious - those are obviously illegal. Any reasonable human being taking a look at a gun sale post can tell that 1. It’s a gun and 2. Guns shouldn’t be sold here. It’s so obvious that it can be trivially automated too. Please respond if you can verify pattas in a reasonable amount of time. Because boy do I have a business idea for you.
peanut_worm 6y ago
I saw entire Teak/Hardwood plantations for sale on E-Bay in Nicaragua or some other central American country. Not sure if they’re still on there. They were like 800k+. I don’t think they were in the rainforest though
barbacoa 6y ago
This is one of those rare times I agree with facebook. Why is this Facebook's problem? Sounds like Brazil should be enforcing their laws better. Facebook hosts for-sale postings, how reasonable is it for them to vet every post against scams and illegality?
- foerbert 6y ago
  If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal. It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.
    - hetspookjee 6y ago
      Indeed. It is complicated, so perhaps not allow selling of land in Brazil than? Because something is hard to do doesn't make it ok not to do it. Facebook is selling illegal products and if it's not capable of getting properly, than it's part of the racket and should be held responsible as so.
      - MattGaiser 6y ago
        Every marketplace has illegal products. Craigslist has stolen cars. Kijiji has stolen pets. eBay has fake collectibles. You will find all manner of scams on Reddit. Fiverr is filled with tons of people willing to do your homework. Expecting marketplaces to police peer to peer transactions in depth is unreasonable.
jfoster 6y ago
"Many of the sellers openly admit they do not have a land title, the only document which proves ownership of land under Brazilian law." In which case, what are they even selling? Who would buy? Even if you "buy", aren't you then still illegally occupying land?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Because the Brazilian government does not care, so they effectively own the land.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    So what's actually being purchased in a transaction? Post-purchase, how is it any different than simply turning up & using the land?
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      Current owner doesn't shoot you?
    - csomar 6y ago
      These lands are usually owned by "agreement" within the "gangs" that are holding or controlling them. It happens a lot where I live until the government cracks down and everyone loses "his" land. The reality is that they are doing temporary activity on the land (like raising cattle) and so if the government cracked down, they'll just take their cows and move on to the next land. The purchase price is too low and that makes it profitable.
      - MertsA 6y ago
        At the very least one of the transactions from the article was just some random middle class guy selling land he's never owned, not some organised criminals demanding protection money.
        6y ago
Proven 6y ago
These busybodies want a democracy and big government, but FB should fix its consequences (a corrupt government and issues with "public ownership"). And they'd better do it for free or else, right?
aaron695 6y ago
When I search for this, it's hard to look past the poverty, people who's dwellings are handmade and have no documentation. https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/manaus/propertyforsale https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/manaus/propertyforsale I guess 50 million people living in real poverty is just a statistic. For all the illegal comments, these dirt poor people living in slums are also living illegally. They probably have no formal property documentation.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  What "illegal comments" are you referring to?
  - aaron695 6y ago
    Comparing it to human slavery and other illegal things and saying Facebook would remove that so why not this. In reality a lot of Brazil runs off selling land not based on documentation, which is technically illegal, but it's also peoples entire lives, the shack they built on a hill is theirs and for Facebook to remove the right to sell that is not a small thing. "Brazil slum dwellers shun home ownership, fearing gentrification" - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-landrights-ngo-idUSKBN15H21I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-landrights-ngo-idU...
    - rsj_hn 6y ago
      I understand there are comments you disagree with, but why do you think they are illegal?
      - aaron695 6y ago
        People who are 'commenting' buying and selling this land is 'illegal' are not understanding the full story. That's all I'm referring to.
rtx 6y ago
Good for Brazilians, I hope they can use their resources and improve the country.
rtrdea 6y ago
Who cares?
anm89 6y ago
I think this highlights how ridiculous it is to expect Facebook to enforce laws. For a given plot of land in the Amazon, how is Facebook going to know the title history of that land. If you have ever paid a title company in the US for a search you know that process takes weeks and theres a much better paper trail here then for some little plot the heart of the Amazon. I'm guessing FB doesn't care either way and would be happy to comply to remove a listing once a Brazilian court determines that a sale is illegal but we don't want Facebook being a defacto Brazilian court.
antfarm 6y ago
I was hoping the land was up for sale in order to be protected from deforestation by its current owners.
- forinti 6y ago
  Even if someone bought it with that objective, they would still have to defend it and it's not an easy task at all.
raister 6y ago
Brazilian here: the government will say in TV it's doing its best effort to protect the forest. However, the president is appointing farmers and non-technical people all over those entities trying to protect the forest, and they are slowly giving rights, permits, etc. to deforestation. And sadly, despite this being tracked and advertised by TV or other news entities, very little is done to deter these criminals all over the current administration. MAYBE international lobbying could work with Brazil, as Germany threaten to reduce the money it gives to protect the forest in 2019 (I don't remember exactly when). And let's not forget that the Amazon forest does not end in Brazilian borders - it goes on in many countries over there. People just assume it's a Brazilian problem (I know a large portion is located in Brazil's side), but it's more a 10-country problem, not to say, a humanity problem...
- childintime 6y ago
  > but it's more a 10-country problem > People just assume it's a Brazilian problem Sadly I must disagree. Take a look at this satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/@-11.4130559,-63.0321741,1330178m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@-11.4130559,-63.0321741,1330178... One can clearly see the typical scars, especially pronounced in Rondônia. Note how deforestation suddenly stops at the borders. Now drag to see neighboring countries (at the same zoom level). They have nowhere near the problem Brazil has.
  - raister 6y ago
    Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!". It's like a mess in the that 'border'. When Brazil stops then, and there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem? Maybe we should act to salvage what remains instead of discussing who's fault it is. Well, as we are discussing, another 100 trees were down.
    - childintime 6y ago
      > Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!". Agree. All the more striking that it does obey borders. > When [Brazil stops then, and] there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem? So you think it is a problem of the world. Yet you as a brazilian feel dependent on the world to take positive action, and save the Amazon. In a way you are saying that the world must know how to do what Brazil itself does not know how to do.. Which superficially seems like a weird and unacceptable attitude to take: grow up!? Yet I sort of agree, as I think stakeholders throughout the world should literally take ownership, buy territory and take action to preserve. Only then can they have a conversation and compete with other (purely capitalist) interests. We are those stakeholders, through the companies we work at, and capitalism (as it ravages the Amazon) is ultimately only civilized by competition.
brainless 6y ago
For anyone supporting Facebook, I am also on the fence but please consider this: Facebook and any similar Internet based vehicle (I use this term instead of marketplace, eCommerce, forum, etc. just to generalize) allows sellers* and buyers to reach each other in ways and over distances that were not possible. This is the effect and gift of the Internet and I am aware of this personally. But, even if individual sellers* or buyers can not be expected to keep up with policies or strict checking, Facebook or any other major, multi-billion $ Internet vehicle has the responsibility since they are pushing their platforms to these people around the world. Just take a moment to think - Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Uber, AirBnB... are all products from a tiny corner of* the planet and have immense impact on how business and communication occurs across the globe. The impact of negligence might be a lot worse that what the managers sitting in the HQ might understand. We all have a responsibility, yes. But the Internet giants have more means to do what is needed. They run the business to solely monetize and they are aware of loopholes. They are not naive. Unless citizens of the Internet ask, this will not change. * Typo fixes
unnouinceput 6y ago
So corrupt local baron uses Facebook to illegally sell and protect the buyer that does an illegal deforestation of sold area? And this is Facebook problem...how? Sounds like anyone who is a medium for ads can and will host this type of ads. I am pretty sure I can do the same on Washington Post, should I've be such a local baron.
childintime 6y ago
This article is a bit sensational: it doesn't mention these plots are being sold via any craigslist type of service, not just facebook. I have seen another listing service push back a little against such postings, but given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones. That space exists, because the transfer of property came with excessive taxes, procedures and costs the poor could not or didn't want to afford. So children inherited the property but not formally. Then they would sell their rights to the property rights. And so on. The "cartórios" (registration offices) register these contracts instead. The property itself slides into informality. In the end the government itself is to blame.
- childintime 6y ago
  Background on the Amazon plots: perverse capitalistic incentives drive this "real estate development". Which are typically white-washed by the current president.
- childintime 6y ago
  The state of Rondônia is highlighted in the article. Makes sense, as it has been almost fully and industrially deforested in the last 20 years. Open up Google Earth and slide it back in time. You'll see deforestation leaving scars on an enormous scale, with obvious corruption of the state government.
- tomxor 6y ago
  > given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones. Would it be so wrong for such a company to take a moral stance and just say no to sale of any land part of the Amazon forest regardless of local legality?
  - childintime 6y ago
    What I'd really like is for the businesses we work at to get serious about their commitment to the environment (instead of doing token commitments). In particular they could invest or participate in a fund or estate, on our behalf, which would take the forest out of its current status of unclaimed territory. Facebook alone could likely buy a significant chunk of the Amazon. Instead we'd want it to only point the finger, also on our behalf? I'm sure Facebook would actually love to be required to police and to eventually govern us. It will misconstrue that we wanted it to. Let's work with each other, not against each other. A cry for more control and repression won't bring a smile to anyone's face.
EL_Loco 6y ago
I lived in Brazil's capital, Brasília, for many years. Illegal land grabs were very, very common there. This wasn't in the jungle. This was a modern city, and there were as many middle class and upper middle class land grabbers as poor ones. This infuriated me. Since the upper middle class neighborhoods were becoming too expensive to buy into, rich people simply invaded protected land and started building there. Or owners of large farmland transformed the land into urban plots and sold the plots illegally, mostly to rich middle and upper middle class people. And everyone knew it was illegal. Everyone. Still to this day, a decade later, I still know people who have very nice homes in very nice neighborhoods, and they still don't have an official, legal land title. They have some semi-bogus, semi-official 'land use' sort of document, and they can't legalize it, and it is all a complicated legal mess, but hey, they got to buy very cheap land and live the middle class dream, right? Who cares if it was illegal, who cares if it the land was supposed to be preserved. And these are the same people who complain that we have corrupt politicians. Really, these are the same people. Everyone in Brazil blames our problems on corrupt politicians, but everyone pulls this kind of 'semi-legal' crap. That's why Brazil sucks. Too bad it's very, very good also.

182 points by bbirnbaum 6y ago

1996 6y ago

I was wondering what the trick is, as selling a place without holding its title may not command a very high price, even if you clear it and make it ready for business - for cattle ranching in the case of the rainforest. Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation: > Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty. > Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land. > A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose. > The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims. If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible! > For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either. I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.

kar5pt 6y ago
How would blockchain land claims be enforced without a state backing them?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Presumably if someone is squatting your blockchain -land you call crypto police and they...?
  - 1996 6y ago
    You don't call anyone. You just publish their picture, name, phone number, and address. If they have done nothing wrong acquiring plots of jungle, they certainly have nothing to fear!! On the other hand, if the blockchain can show conclusively some ex-post reassignment of property rights, and whose corrupt official were responsible, maybe some heads will roll (and I mean that quite literally in South America!)
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex" Is geofencing the protected natural reserves is too much to ask? "name and shame of the land thieves." Huh? In Russia that doesn't help one bit, I can't imagine it would in Brazil.
hshshs2 6y ago
can we just stop shoehorning blockchain into everything

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Illegally sold, that’s the distinction the headline misses.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

MattGaiser 6y ago

The Brazilian government doesn’t seem to care either.

csomar 6y ago
It's too expensive to enforce the law in the jungle. Also it doesn't bring any profit.
- forinti 6y ago
  They would probably reconsider this if they calculated how much it will cost to not have the Amazon there. Rain in the southeast and central-west regions depend a lot on the Amazon.
- EL_Loco 6y ago
  It's expensive, sure, but the money would be there if the government wasn't so innefficient and corrupt.
mrweasel 6y ago
Which is honestly much worse.

tamaharbor 6y ago

I had a star named after me once.

spicyramen 6y ago

That's illegal, can't claim ownership

MattGaiser 6y ago
Possession seems to be the law in more remote areas.
tolbish 6y ago
That's what indigenous people in the Americas thought before the Europeans came.

Ansil849 6y ago

> Facebook said it was "ready to work with local authorities", but indicated it would not take independent action of its own to halt the trade. Huh? If the ads were for firearms or child slaves, would Facebook's response also be that it was ready to work with local authorities, but would not take independent action? So how can Facebook take this kind of flippant approach to this, but not on other items? The, not even hypocrisy, but just complete lack of fundamental human decency and respect is revolting.

rriepe 6y ago
Children and guns can be trafficked.
MattGaiser 6y ago
Selling children and guns (at least in most parts of the world) is just outright prohibited. Selling land isn't. You don't need to figure out whether it is an illegal or legal child sale as all child selling is illegal. Selling land in itself is not illegal.
- hetspookjee 6y ago
  Its outright prohibited to sell illegal land as well. Facebook might also require a proof of ownership before allowing the sale.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    How do you verify proof of ownership? I have a “patta” indicating I own some land. There are only a few million people in the world who can even read the words on this document. There are only a few thousand who can understand the meaning behind those words. There are many a hundred who can verify if it’s a forgery or not. Meanwhile I doubt you can tell which part of the world it’s from based on just “patta” or looking at the document. It’s strange that multiple people on this thread have gone with “prostitution, slavery, sales of firearms don’t happen on online marketplaces, why should this?” It’s so obvious - those are obviously illegal. Any reasonable human being taking a look at a gun sale post can tell that 1. It’s a gun and 2. Guns shouldn’t be sold here. It’s so obvious that it can be trivially automated too. Please respond if you can verify pattas in a reasonable amount of time. Because boy do I have a business idea for you.

peanut_worm 6y ago

I saw entire Teak/Hardwood plantations for sale on E-Bay in Nicaragua or some other central American country. Not sure if they’re still on there. They were like 800k+. I don’t think they were in the rainforest though

barbacoa 6y ago

This is one of those rare times I agree with facebook. Why is this Facebook's problem? Sounds like Brazil should be enforcing their laws better. Facebook hosts for-sale postings, how reasonable is it for them to vet every post against scams and illegality?

foerbert 6y ago
If you follow this line of thought, the conclusion seems to be that if Facebook were to run ads for illegal drugs, explosives, or humans, it would simply be an indication that some country should be enforcing it's laws better. And Facebook would be totally in clear to continue showing those ads. This seems obviously wrong.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Except it is outright illegal to sell drugs, explosives, or humans. Any ad selling those is almost certainly illegal. If humans for sale, post is illegal. It is not illegal to sell land. A moderator would need to delve into Brazilian law and mapping to determine if that specific sale was illegal.
  - hetspookjee 6y ago
    Indeed. It is complicated, so perhaps not allow selling of land in Brazil than? Because something is hard to do doesn't make it ok not to do it. Facebook is selling illegal products and if it's not capable of getting properly, than it's part of the racket and should be held responsible as so.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      Every marketplace has illegal products. Craigslist has stolen cars. Kijiji has stolen pets. eBay has fake collectibles. You will find all manner of scams on Reddit. Fiverr is filled with tons of people willing to do your homework. Expecting marketplaces to police peer to peer transactions in depth is unreasonable.

jfoster 6y ago

"Many of the sellers openly admit they do not have a land title, the only document which proves ownership of land under Brazilian law." In which case, what are they even selling? Who would buy? Even if you "buy", aren't you then still illegally occupying land?

MattGaiser 6y ago
Because the Brazilian government does not care, so they effectively own the land.
- jfoster 6y ago
  So what's actually being purchased in a transaction? Post-purchase, how is it any different than simply turning up & using the land?
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Current owner doesn't shoot you?
  - csomar 6y ago
    These lands are usually owned by "agreement" within the "gangs" that are holding or controlling them. It happens a lot where I live until the government cracks down and everyone loses "his" land. The reality is that they are doing temporary activity on the land (like raising cattle) and so if the government cracked down, they'll just take their cows and move on to the next land. The purchase price is too low and that makes it profitable.
    - MertsA 6y ago
      At the very least one of the transactions from the article was just some random middle class guy selling land he's never owned, not some organised criminals demanding protection money.
      - 6y ago

Proven 6y ago

These busybodies want a democracy and big government, but FB should fix its consequences (a corrupt government and issues with "public ownership"). And they'd better do it for free or else, right?

aaron695 6y ago

When I search for this, it's hard to look past the poverty, people who's dwellings are handmade and have no documentation. https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/manaus/propertyforsale https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/manaus/propertyforsale I guess 50 million people living in real poverty is just a statistic. For all the illegal comments, these dirt poor people living in slums are also living illegally. They probably have no formal property documentation.

rsj_hn 6y ago
What "illegal comments" are you referring to?
- aaron695 6y ago
  Comparing it to human slavery and other illegal things and saying Facebook would remove that so why not this. In reality a lot of Brazil runs off selling land not based on documentation, which is technically illegal, but it's also peoples entire lives, the shack they built on a hill is theirs and for Facebook to remove the right to sell that is not a small thing. "Brazil slum dwellers shun home ownership, fearing gentrification" - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-landrights-ngo-idUSKBN15H21I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-landrights-ngo-idU...
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    I understand there are comments you disagree with, but why do you think they are illegal?
    - aaron695 6y ago
      People who are 'commenting' buying and selling this land is 'illegal' are not understanding the full story. That's all I'm referring to.

rtx 6y ago

Good for Brazilians, I hope they can use their resources and improve the country.

rtrdea 6y ago

Who cares?

anm89 6y ago

I think this highlights how ridiculous it is to expect Facebook to enforce laws. For a given plot of land in the Amazon, how is Facebook going to know the title history of that land. If you have ever paid a title company in the US for a search you know that process takes weeks and theres a much better paper trail here then for some little plot the heart of the Amazon. I'm guessing FB doesn't care either way and would be happy to comply to remove a listing once a Brazilian court determines that a sale is illegal but we don't want Facebook being a defacto Brazilian court.

antfarm 6y ago

I was hoping the land was up for sale in order to be protected from deforestation by its current owners.

forinti 6y ago
Even if someone bought it with that objective, they would still have to defend it and it's not an easy task at all.

raister 6y ago

Brazilian here: the government will say in TV it's doing its best effort to protect the forest. However, the president is appointing farmers and non-technical people all over those entities trying to protect the forest, and they are slowly giving rights, permits, etc. to deforestation. And sadly, despite this being tracked and advertised by TV or other news entities, very little is done to deter these criminals all over the current administration. MAYBE international lobbying could work with Brazil, as Germany threaten to reduce the money it gives to protect the forest in 2019 (I don't remember exactly when). And let's not forget that the Amazon forest does not end in Brazilian borders - it goes on in many countries over there. People just assume it's a Brazilian problem (I know a large portion is located in Brazil's side), but it's more a 10-country problem, not to say, a humanity problem...

childintime 6y ago
> but it's more a 10-country problem > People just assume it's a Brazilian problem Sadly I must disagree. Take a look at this satellite view: https://www.google.com/maps/@-11.4130559,-63.0321741,1330178m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@-11.4130559,-63.0321741,1330178... One can clearly see the typical scars, especially pronounced in Rondônia. Note how deforestation suddenly stops at the borders. Now drag to see neighboring countries (at the same zoom level). They have nowhere near the problem Brazil has.
- raister 6y ago
  Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!". It's like a mess in the that 'border'. When Brazil stops then, and there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem? Maybe we should act to salvage what remains instead of discussing who's fault it is. Well, as we are discussing, another 100 trees were down.
  - childintime 6y ago
    > Well, those are 'tricky' regions. I don't believe that in Rondônia they will say: "what, this tree belongs to Bolívia! don't take it down, please!". Agree. All the more striking that it does obey borders. > When [Brazil stops then, and] there are no more trees to take down in its side, then it will stop being a Brazilian problem? So you think it is a problem of the world. Yet you as a brazilian feel dependent on the world to take positive action, and save the Amazon. In a way you are saying that the world must know how to do what Brazil itself does not know how to do.. Which superficially seems like a weird and unacceptable attitude to take: grow up!? Yet I sort of agree, as I think stakeholders throughout the world should literally take ownership, buy territory and take action to preserve. Only then can they have a conversation and compete with other (purely capitalist) interests. We are those stakeholders, through the companies we work at, and capitalism (as it ravages the Amazon) is ultimately only civilized by competition.

brainless 6y ago

For anyone supporting Facebook, I am also on the fence but please consider this: Facebook and any similar Internet based vehicle (I use this term instead of marketplace, eCommerce, forum, etc. just to generalize) allows sellers* and buyers to reach each other in ways and over distances that were not possible. This is the effect and gift of the Internet and I am aware of this personally. But, even if individual sellers* or buyers can not be expected to keep up with policies or strict checking, Facebook or any other major, multi-billion $ Internet vehicle has the responsibility since they are pushing their platforms to these people around the world. Just take a moment to think - Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Uber, AirBnB... are all products from a tiny corner of* the planet and have immense impact on how business and communication occurs across the globe. The impact of negligence might be a lot worse that what the managers sitting in the HQ might understand. We all have a responsibility, yes. But the Internet giants have more means to do what is needed. They run the business to solely monetize and they are aware of loopholes. They are not naive. Unless citizens of the Internet ask, this will not change. * Typo fixes

unnouinceput 6y ago

So corrupt local baron uses Facebook to illegally sell and protect the buyer that does an illegal deforestation of sold area? And this is Facebook problem...how? Sounds like anyone who is a medium for ads can and will host this type of ads. I am pretty sure I can do the same on Washington Post, should I've be such a local baron.

childintime 6y ago

This article is a bit sensational: it doesn't mention these plots are being sold via any craigslist type of service, not just facebook. I have seen another listing service push back a little against such postings, but given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones. That space exists, because the transfer of property came with excessive taxes, procedures and costs the poor could not or didn't want to afford. So children inherited the property but not formally. Then they would sell their rights to the property rights. And so on. The "cartórios" (registration offices) register these contracts instead. The property itself slides into informality. In the end the government itself is to blame.

childintime 6y ago
Background on the Amazon plots: perverse capitalistic incentives drive this "real estate development". Which are typically white-washed by the current president.
childintime 6y ago
The state of Rondônia is highlighted in the article. Makes sense, as it has been almost fully and industrially deforested in the last 20 years. Open up Google Earth and slide it back in time. You'll see deforestation leaving scars on an enormous scale, with obvious corruption of the state government.
tomxor 6y ago
> given the ample space between the law and illegality, it is hard for them to identify semi-legitimate postings from illegitimate ones. Would it be so wrong for such a company to take a moral stance and just say no to sale of any land part of the Amazon forest regardless of local legality?
- childintime 6y ago
  What I'd really like is for the businesses we work at to get serious about their commitment to the environment (instead of doing token commitments). In particular they could invest or participate in a fund or estate, on our behalf, which would take the forest out of its current status of unclaimed territory. Facebook alone could likely buy a significant chunk of the Amazon. Instead we'd want it to only point the finger, also on our behalf? I'm sure Facebook would actually love to be required to police and to eventually govern us. It will misconstrue that we wanted it to. Let's work with each other, not against each other. A cry for more control and repression won't bring a smile to anyone's face.

EL_Loco 6y ago

I lived in Brazil's capital, Brasília, for many years. Illegal land grabs were very, very common there. This wasn't in the jungle. This was a modern city, and there were as many middle class and upper middle class land grabbers as poor ones. This infuriated me. Since the upper middle class neighborhoods were becoming too expensive to buy into, rich people simply invaded protected land and started building there. Or owners of large farmland transformed the land into urban plots and sold the plots illegally, mostly to rich middle and upper middle class people. And everyone knew it was illegal. Everyone. Still to this day, a decade later, I still know people who have very nice homes in very nice neighborhoods, and they still don't have an official, legal land title. They have some semi-bogus, semi-official 'land use' sort of document, and they can't legalize it, and it is all a complicated legal mess, but hey, they got to buy very cheap land and live the middle class dream, right? Who cares if it was illegal, who cares if it the land was supposed to be preserved. And these are the same people who complain that we have corrupt politicians. Really, these are the same people. Everyone in Brazil blames our problems on corrupt politicians, but everyone pulls this kind of 'semi-legal' crap. That's why Brazil sucks. Too bad it's very, very good also.