5 ms·

Supposedly it's about the children. Sao Paulo solved the problem: > Many Brazilian states didn’t wait for the federal response. Sao Paulo, for example, tempora

Supposedly it's about the children. Sao Paulo solved the problem: > Many Brazilian states didn’t wait for the federal response. Sao Paulo, for example, temporarily hired 550 psychologists to attend to its public schools, and hired 1,000 private security guards. https://apnews.com/article/brazil-school-violence-guns-attacks-us-51832f5663d9f7e9591d660ce086205b https://apnews.com/article/brazil-school-violence-guns-attac... This is what disgruntled poor people did in China, too, used a $5 hatchet. You don't even need to be able to afford a gun . I don't see a (neo)Nazi angle in that crime, though. There's no clear motive for the attack yet and no connection to Telegram either (based on coverage in DW and The Guardian), so I'm guessing Lula is simply trying to crack down on free speech. Users who want private comms with encryption and metadata cleansing can use decentralized blockchain based services such as xx Network's xxMessenger. xxMessenger can be blocked by the ISPs by blocking outgoing connections to xx gateways, but desktop-only Speakeasy Tech can use Tor Network (Tor Browser's Socks5 proxy or Arti) so it's likely to work better when telcos and ISPs are ordered to block connections or DNS lookups. There are other, similar networks, I just don't know enough about them to make specific recommendations. Disclosure: I own xx coins.

speeder 3y ago
You are correct. Brazilian had a CIA backed dictatorship during cold War, and when it ended people made sure to make a constitution that would prevent another one. Sadly the constitution is being ignored for a while now, the current government is strongly against free speech, the previous government also had issues. Meanwhile the Supreme Court are the ones that really hate the constitution, for example a guy was arrested for saying in an airplane near a judge that he is ashamed of being Brazilian. The last president pointed out our constitution doesn't allow lockdowns without a special council ordering one (to prevent the president from declaring curfew and arresting dissidents) the Supreme Court then ordered lockdowns to be made anyway. (And the media called the president genocidal for pointing out lockdowns were illegal if not done correctly)
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Strongly against free speech... They are discussing a "fake news" law literally right now. It contains terms like "internet supervision entity".
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Please clarify whether you are referring to some proposed law in Brazil or the RESTRICT act being proposed in the USA?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Proposed brazilian law against "fake news".
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  I remember that "freedom" speech by bolsonaro. It was something to behold. Took a lot of guts to take the entire cabinet of ministers to task for failing to protect brazilians against errant bureaucracy. Too bad the video seems to not be in youtube anymore
- forabolsonaro 3y ago
  [flagged]
- epups 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Could you please stop using HN for ideological battle and flamewar? You've unfortunately been doing a lot of that. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we end up having to ban accounts that do it (regardless of what they're battling for). Edit: also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760334 - that kind of comment is a bannable offense.
    - epups 3y ago
      Ok, got it. I can see how my comments were inflammatory in this thread and will refrain from that in the future. On the other hand, I think a thread like this one also fits your description of ideological battle and flame war. It is very political and deeply biased, including inflammatory comments about imprisoning and killing people for their political ideology. We see that in threads about religion as well, which are very lightly moderated but contain uncivilised content. If you allow trash and ban the pushback, eventually HN will devolve into Truth social or equivalent when it comes to politics.
      - dang 3y ago
        HN actually has a guideline to address just that: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). We can't exclude divisive topics altogether—that would not be consistent with the mandate of this site (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... for lots of past explanation about why). So we ask users on all sides of divisive topics to respect the site guidelines, and each other, by posting thoughtfully and not collapsing into flamewar. Everyone with strong passions feels like the other side is posting inflammatory trash and they themselves are merely providing pushback. This feeling is part of the standard equipment that everyone brings to a flamewar, so you can't let yourself be guided by it. What you need to do instead (<-- I don't mean "you" personally, I mean all of us) is hold yourself to a higher standard and not break the rules even if other people are breaking them badly. If you make a good faith effort to do that, then you can just about compensate for the default bias of feeling like "the other side started it and did worse" and approximately level the field.

speeder 3y ago

You are correct. Brazilian had a CIA backed dictatorship during cold War, and when it ended people made sure to make a constitution that would prevent another one. Sadly the constitution is being ignored for a while now, the current government is strongly against free speech, the previous government also had issues. Meanwhile the Supreme Court are the ones that really hate the constitution, for example a guy was arrested for saying in an airplane near a judge that he is ashamed of being Brazilian. The last president pointed out our constitution doesn't allow lockdowns without a special council ordering one (to prevent the president from declaring curfew and arresting dissidents) the Supreme Court then ordered lockdowns to be made anyway. (And the media called the president genocidal for pointing out lockdowns were illegal if not done correctly)

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Strongly against free speech... They are discussing a "fake news" law literally right now. It contains terms like "internet supervision entity".
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Please clarify whether you are referring to some proposed law in Brazil or the RESTRICT act being proposed in the USA?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Proposed brazilian law against "fake news".
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
I remember that "freedom" speech by bolsonaro. It was something to behold. Took a lot of guts to take the entire cabinet of ministers to task for failing to protect brazilians against errant bureaucracy. Too bad the video seems to not be in youtube anymore
forabolsonaro 3y ago
[flagged]
epups 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Could you please stop using HN for ideological battle and flamewar? You've unfortunately been doing a lot of that. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we end up having to ban accounts that do it (regardless of what they're battling for). Edit: also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760334 - that kind of comment is a bannable offense.
  - epups 3y ago
    Ok, got it. I can see how my comments were inflammatory in this thread and will refrain from that in the future. On the other hand, I think a thread like this one also fits your description of ideological battle and flame war. It is very political and deeply biased, including inflammatory comments about imprisoning and killing people for their political ideology. We see that in threads about religion as well, which are very lightly moderated but contain uncivilised content. If you allow trash and ban the pushback, eventually HN will devolve into Truth social or equivalent when it comes to politics.
    - dang 3y ago
      HN actually has a guideline to address just that: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). We can't exclude divisive topics altogether—that would not be consistent with the mandate of this site (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... for lots of past explanation about why). So we ask users on all sides of divisive topics to respect the site guidelines, and each other, by posting thoughtfully and not collapsing into flamewar. Everyone with strong passions feels like the other side is posting inflammatory trash and they themselves are merely providing pushback. This feeling is part of the standard equipment that everyone brings to a flamewar, so you can't let yourself be guided by it. What you need to do instead (<-- I don't mean "you" personally, I mean all of us) is hold yourself to a higher standard and not break the rules even if other people are breaking them badly. If you make a good faith effort to do that, then you can just about compensate for the default bias of feeling like "the other side started it and did worse" and approximately level the field.