3 ms·

The world is gradually sliding into an authoritarian dystopia and nobody is willing to do anything about it. What a time to be alive.

Barrin92 5y ago
Honestly I don't really see the dystopia here. Telegram refused to comply with legal court orders, and as a result the app can't operate in the country. Honestly to me this is less dystopian than having unaccountable business wholesale ignore the laws of a nation state, which Telegram seems to do just about anywhere. Not sure since when literally following the law qualified as authoritarianism.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  I don't enjoy giving a-holes a platform but it's way too easy to just point at somebody, call them names that rile up the public, and de-platform them if they are inconvenient for you. Freedom of speech is important, even if it enables a-holes as a side effect. Furthermore, this seems like a classic case of political warfare where a company is dragged into the politicians' squabbles and is forced to pick a side. It's an impossible situation for any company involved and we already know even Facebook and Google and Apple gave in. The "legal court orders" are super easy to craft when you're ruling the country so don't give me that, it's not a good argument at all. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden were also "legally" persecuted. Or will you now say they shouldn't have done what they did?
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    >Freedom of speech is important, even if it enables a-holes as a side effect many things are important and all of them have in common that they find their limits within the bounds of the law. Brazil has a different take on freedom of speech than the US. You can argue about the details of this particular case of course and whether it's politized or not, but it isn't authoritarian at all to demand that tat a tech company acts within regulations. A Russian dude running a company out of Dubai by American speech standards is a nice cosmopolitan tale but has little relevance in Brazil. >Or will you now say they shouldn't have done what they did? Yes I think they should not have done what they did, or slightly more nuanced, if they thought it was ethical to do what they did, they should have accepted the punishment. Assange's wholesale dump in particular was damaging not just to US national security but also civilians who assisted American forces and whose identity was exposed, but that's another discussion.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Brazil's take is wrong, just like Russia's and China's is. Whether something is dystopian or not is unrelated to whether it's legal. Dystopia is always legal, that's the point of it.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Because the courts are abusing their powers and working against the citizens.
- djbebs 5y ago
  Every censor was also doing something legal. It doesn't make their censorship any more rightful.
- native_samples 5y ago
  You don't see anything dystopian about systematically preventing Brazilians from talking to each other because of "misinformation"? They appear to be trying to wipe Bolsonaro out, judging from the contents of the article.

Barrin92 5y ago

Honestly I don't really see the dystopia here. Telegram refused to comply with legal court orders, and as a result the app can't operate in the country. Honestly to me this is less dystopian than having unaccountable business wholesale ignore the laws of a nation state, which Telegram seems to do just about anywhere. Not sure since when literally following the law qualified as authoritarianism.

pdimitar 5y ago
I don't enjoy giving a-holes a platform but it's way too easy to just point at somebody, call them names that rile up the public, and de-platform them if they are inconvenient for you. Freedom of speech is important, even if it enables a-holes as a side effect. Furthermore, this seems like a classic case of political warfare where a company is dragged into the politicians' squabbles and is forced to pick a side. It's an impossible situation for any company involved and we already know even Facebook and Google and Apple gave in. The "legal court orders" are super easy to craft when you're ruling the country so don't give me that, it's not a good argument at all. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden were also "legally" persecuted. Or will you now say they shouldn't have done what they did?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >Freedom of speech is important, even if it enables a-holes as a side effect many things are important and all of them have in common that they find their limits within the bounds of the law. Brazil has a different take on freedom of speech than the US. You can argue about the details of this particular case of course and whether it's politized or not, but it isn't authoritarian at all to demand that tat a tech company acts within regulations. A Russian dude running a company out of Dubai by American speech standards is a nice cosmopolitan tale but has little relevance in Brazil. >Or will you now say they shouldn't have done what they did? Yes I think they should not have done what they did, or slightly more nuanced, if they thought it was ethical to do what they did, they should have accepted the punishment. Assange's wholesale dump in particular was damaging not just to US national security but also civilians who assisted American forces and whose identity was exposed, but that's another discussion.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Brazil's take is wrong, just like Russia's and China's is. Whether something is dystopian or not is unrelated to whether it's legal. Dystopia is always legal, that's the point of it.
Bancakes 5y ago
Because the courts are abusing their powers and working against the citizens.
djbebs 5y ago
Every censor was also doing something legal. It doesn't make their censorship any more rightful.
native_samples 5y ago
You don't see anything dystopian about systematically preventing Brazilians from talking to each other because of "misinformation"? They appear to be trying to wipe Bolsonaro out, judging from the contents of the article.