12 ms·
No company should think it's above the national laws
by whatsu 3y ago
No company should think it's above the national laws
- alwayslikethis 3y agoSo they should also hand out the names and locations of people organizing anti-war protests in Russia if ever requested.
- comechao 3y agoGood point, that’s why this conversation has more nuance. In this case, a single judge from one of the Brazilian states has decided to take down an app for the entire country.
- rektide 3y agoMan the judicial systems of the world keep seeming like the new unchecked off their rockers loonies. Definitely feeling like the weekest link in democracy.
- pseudo0 3y agoAdvocacy groups have gotten very good at forum-shopping the most extreme district court judges and convincing them to issue nation-wide injunctions. That practice probably does need to be curtailed. We saw it with the recent abortion pill issue but it was also happening with Trump's immigration restrictions, for example. No matter which side of the aisle it is coming from, some random judge in Hawaii or Texas should not be able to block nation-wide legislation without an exceptionally good reason.
- Nursie 3y agoI mean, presumably that reason will be violation of the law? It's not like the judge just wakes up one day and decides "Hey, I'm going to fuck this up for everyone". There's a case for the judge to hear, and actions based on rulings. Higher courts can decide if they stand up to scrutiny (and there are often ways for effects to be stayed pending the rulings of these higher courts - see for instance Elizabeth Holmes staying out of prison again today). Personally I think it's great that judges can make rulings that affect the operations of large multinational companies and services - remove that and we're even more in thrall to big money, with even less scope for legal remedy. Now when law is applied flippantly, corruptly, poorly, with bias etc and the country does nothing to fix it, that's on the country to fix itself and run better, not by removing the power for the 'little guy' to have any influence at all.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- p-e-w 3y agoIf they want to do business in Russia? Absolutely. Fortunately, nobody is forcing them to do business in Russia. But doing so entails acceptance of whatever local rules there are, including rules the vast majority of people might consider wrong. I can promise you that Facebook & Co happily hand information on any individual to US law enforcement as long as there is a court order. They don't look at the person in question and then decide based on their own sense of morality whether they "should" supply that information. They simply do it.
- Georgelemental 3y agoDoes Telegram have servers or offices in Brazil?
- skrowl 3y agoNo company should give up it's user data without a fight It's not even clear that who they were looking for had broken any laws
- whatsu 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matheusmoreira 3y agoNazism? What a laugh. Here's the real reason for these blocks: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/world/americas/brazil-telegram-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/world/americas/brazil-tel...
- cjalmeida 3y agoThis is literally about nazism. Here’s a copy of the decision in PT https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/telegram-decisao-suspensao.pdf https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/telegram-decisao-suspensao.pdf Please stop spreading misinformation
- rafaelrc 3y agoOh yeah, telegram is a nazi company, they "commited a crime". Fuck off. What is your plan to defeat nazism, ban the whole internet? Because, sorry for giving you the bad news, Telegram is far from the only place where there are stupid people.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago> ban the whole internet? These judges? I don't doubt for a second they'd do it.
- HideousKojima 3y agoNeither should any nation think it has the right to enforce its will on foreign entities.
- Theitheave42 3y agoCouldn’t agree more.
- rektide 3y agoYou and JP Barlow's Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace can have words. There's 195 nations on this planet. Should every company lower themselves below every nation? Without question? There's far more provinces with some lawmaking capability. How logistically do we even begin to figure out how to obey each & every single local rule? These nations are on the internet. It's an unplace to connect all places. If your area has stupid beef, it's on you to handle your shit & make it so. The whole world doesn't bend to your local rules, it doesn't alter the rules of the entire internet.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago> There's 195 nations on this planet. Should every company lower themselves below every nation? Without question? My honest response to this would be: “yes, if they want to do business in said country”. Otherwise we end up where we’ve been, with Facebook being the sole way to access internet in some places. Why should an organization seeking to make a profit hold more sway than the institutions that allow such a profit to be made in the first place (not to mention the protection of their citizens). To be clear, I realize that in practice, many governments don’t operate in as much good faith as I’d like. But I’d also argue that’s largely due to business holding outsized sway across the globe. > There's far more provinces with some lawmaking capability. How logistically do we even begin to figure out how to obey each & every single local rule? There is no inherent right to do business internationally. Requiring that companies adhere to the laws wherever they choose to operate is hardly unreasonable. If they cannot comply — if the logistics are too expensive — then obviously they’re not successful enough to expand into these new countries. But the idea that companies — where the ultimate goal is profit — should outrank governments — where the ultimate goal is a functioning society — seems ludicrous when stated plainly. The fact that our current society is largely modeled by outsized corporate influence is proof of that. One can argue that not all governments, or even most, seek a functioning society in the way I’ve described. But even then, one must realize that the governments in question are beholden to corporate interests. All the way back to the East India Company and beyond, one can demonstrate that globalized corporate influence harms society. So these are hardly ridiculous questions to ask.
- 3y ago
- 0xy 3y ago"Every company should implement mass censorship and encourage countries to overstep" This is a really weak defeatist position. Brazil's administration is attempting to silence opposition voices, this has nothing to do with Nazis. Much like the EU uses "hate speech" laws to silence mass immigration skeptics, this is a political measure to silence people.
- dancemethis 3y agoNah, it has all to do with nazis this time. The current government isn't like the last one, that actually used the intelligence machine to attack opposition voices. Law kind of exists.
- vitorgrs 3y agoAre you saying all the opposition are nazi? Because this was literally a nazi group called ""卐 Frente Anti-Semita 卐""
- 0xy 3y agoAnd? The opposition organizes on Telegram, and it's a way bigger target.
- vitorgrs 3y agoEven the current government has telegram channels lol. This has nothing to do with it. It was done by a judge, not the government.
- 0xy 3y agoYou appear to be implying Brazilian judges are not politicized, which seems laughable given the Supreme Court as well as the message leaks. Brazilian judges are not even in the same realm of impartiality as some first world countries. This appeal to authority falls flat, as it would if you implied Venezuelan judges were impartial.
- Georgelemental 3y agoNo national laws should think they are above freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoBrazilian politicians are introducing "fake news" laws literally right now.
- cjalmeida 3y agoUnabridged, borderline irresponsible freedom of expression is granted only in the US. Some Canadian truckers found this out the hard way
- Georgelemental 3y agoSomehow, despite all the incorrect opinions and unsanctioned thoughts, we still get by.
- Nursie 3y agoOK, now define those things in an unambiguous way such that countries can come together in agreement over what constitutes expression, where the lines are with respect to slander/libel, what constitutes incitement, harassment... is money expression? Are lies in advertising protected? These simple declarations of what people feel is true and right are ... I dunno, is the right expression "charmingly naive"?
- Georgelemental 3y agoActually, it's not that hard to define these things pretty unambiguously. I hashed this out in a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35508978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35508978
- Nursie 3y agoI think that thread actually nicely shows how hard and how contentious the issue is.
- eviks 3y agoNo government should think it's above its national laws
- rafaelrc 3y agoStockholm syndrome is a bitch