6 ms·

In Brazil, a Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to impose fines on people and companies that violate the law. In this case, federal law #12.965.

pmdr 2y ago
Can individual judges do as they please without any voting or consensus?
- NomDePlum 2y ago
  There job is to interpret and implement the law. So they should never do as they please but ensure the law is enforced. Sometimes that's conjunction with a jury or as a panel of judges. Those scenarios involve voting or consensus. But not all judgements are made this way. Decisions can be appealed or challenged by higher courts.
virgulino 2y ago
I did NOT violate the law. How come he is deleting the VPN apps on my phone??? That I need to remote to my overseas job??? How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job?
- swatcoder 2y ago
  > How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? > How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job? Because the other party did violate the law. Unfortunately, Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue who likes to pick fights, and you and your neighbor are suffering the consequences of that. He doesn't care about you in the least, and you should be wary about asking your government to pick up the slack for his egotism as it would just position him to further ignore or exploit you and your community. (The broader VPN ban is admittedly another thing, though.)
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    > Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue Twitter was bought from ideologues by someone who opened it up to other ideologies. While this may have increased the absolute ideological load on the platform it actually decreased the effective ideological charge since opposite sides cancel out each other, pulling the balance towards the centre where it used to tilt heavily towards a single side.
    - pkaeding 2y ago
      I don't think opposing ideas cancel each other out, like so much electrical charge. The more opposing ideas on a platform, the more ideas are spread, tested, strengthened, weakened, and grown. An echo chamber is where ideas go to die.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      These people never seem to learn that when the table turns, and it will, that they won’t like it anymore. They lived when the censor suited them but cry foul when it’s in opposition. It’s important to curate a culture and agreed set of norms that you can live with when you’re not in control.
    - guhcampos 2y ago
      > the effective ideological charge since opposite sides cancel out each other I honestly, wholeheartedly wish that was true. In reality, however, the ideology of whoever holds more economic power has orders of magnitude more weight than the one of the powerless masses.
- perihelions 2y ago
  - "How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say?" This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." The right of an individual human to read what some individual account on a media platform wrote is a core civil right, and should be inviolate. It stands alone and apart from whatever other wrongs the platform is involved in. The modern zeitgeist isn't merely burning books; it's burning down magnificent libraries of books in order to spite approximately five of them.
  - foinker 2y ago
    I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
      we should accept that government agencies are not suitable for the purpose of providing your basic food, medical, education, or security needs; who furthermore only care about your food, your healthcare, habeas corpus or rule of law when it suits them and maintains their job. There are other ways besides the USDA, DoE, or FBI to get good food, health, education, and security.
      - foinker 2y ago
        Seriously? Governments' legitimacy is pinned to their ability to provide food and medical attention to their citizenry. It doesn't make any difference whether or not twitter exists or who has access to it.
    - 2y ago
- NomDePlum 2y ago
  Things deemed illegal or not compliant by a jurisdictional entity often have negative consequences for others. Most legal judgements are blunt swords. Fairness is seldom considered. I'm not agreeing with the outcomes here. Just pointing out laws get enforced, if they don't they aren't laws.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    There is no "fake news" law. One was proposed and rejected by our representatives. Then the judge-king published a resolution of sorts which basically rammed the law through anyway. Brazilian constitution says: > Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited What he's doing is censorship, plain and simple. And it's unconstitutional.
- guhcampos 2y ago
  They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone, but the apps would be gone from the stores, which does not make it much less of a bullshit. Restricting access to X makes sense: the platform has removed themselves from the country, making it impossible to resolve legal and financial disputes in Brazil, so it makes sense they are not allowed to operate in the country anymore. Then again, punishing users that access it through other means is baffling.
  - sva_ 2y ago
    > They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone Google can definitely install/delete apps from your phone remotely using Play Store.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    No, it doesn't make sense. The reason they had to pull out of the country is that representatives of X were about to be thrown in jail for an American business not honoring censorship edicts written by this judge. Why not Meta or Google? Because they've honored the censorship orders. When he couldn't find representatives of X, he went after SpaceX and StarLink, even though no law allows him to do so. The judge is simply on a personal vendetta against Elon Musk solely on the basis of political alignment. This isn't baffling, this is leftist totalitarianism at work.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election. Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.
      - slowmovintarget 2y ago
        No. The judge is attempting to silence anyone speaking out against the new leftist government. Meta and Google silently complied. X did not.
cassianoleal 2y ago
Which part of that law have the users of VPNs violated?
- Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
  the part they just made up of course!

pmdr 2y ago

Can individual judges do as they please without any voting or consensus?

NomDePlum 2y ago
There job is to interpret and implement the law. So they should never do as they please but ensure the law is enforced. Sometimes that's conjunction with a jury or as a panel of judges. Those scenarios involve voting or consensus. But not all judgements are made this way. Decisions can be appealed or challenged by higher courts.

virgulino 2y ago

I did NOT violate the law. How come he is deleting the VPN apps on my phone??? That I need to remote to my overseas job??? How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job?

swatcoder 2y ago
> How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say? > How come my neighbor, who makes a honest living through X-Twitter, has now lost her job? Because the other party did violate the law. Unfortunately, Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue who likes to pick fights, and you and your neighbor are suffering the consequences of that. He doesn't care about you in the least, and you should be wary about asking your government to pick up the slack for his egotism as it would just position him to further ignore or exploit you and your community. (The broader VPN ban is admittedly another thing, though.)
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > Twitter got taken over by an international ideologue Twitter was bought from ideologues by someone who opened it up to other ideologies. While this may have increased the absolute ideological load on the platform it actually decreased the effective ideological charge since opposite sides cancel out each other, pulling the balance towards the centre where it used to tilt heavily towards a single side.
  - pkaeding 2y ago
    I don't think opposing ideas cancel each other out, like so much electrical charge. The more opposing ideas on a platform, the more ideas are spread, tested, strengthened, weakened, and grown. An echo chamber is where ideas go to die.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    These people never seem to learn that when the table turns, and it will, that they won’t like it anymore. They lived when the censor suited them but cry foul when it’s in opposition. It’s important to curate a culture and agreed set of norms that you can live with when you’re not in control.
  - guhcampos 2y ago
    > the effective ideological charge since opposite sides cancel out each other I honestly, wholeheartedly wish that was true. In reality, however, the ideology of whoever holds more economic power has orders of magnitude more weight than the one of the powerless masses.
perihelions 2y ago
- "How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say?" This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." The right of an individual human to read what some individual account on a media platform wrote is a core civil right, and should be inviolate. It stands alone and apart from whatever other wrongs the platform is involved in. The modern zeitgeist isn't merely burning books; it's burning down magnificent libraries of books in order to spite approximately five of them.
- foinker 2y ago
  I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    we should accept that government agencies are not suitable for the purpose of providing your basic food, medical, education, or security needs; who furthermore only care about your food, your healthcare, habeas corpus or rule of law when it suits them and maintains their job. There are other ways besides the USDA, DoE, or FBI to get good food, health, education, and security.
    - foinker 2y ago
      Seriously? Governments' legitimacy is pinned to their ability to provide food and medical attention to their citizenry. It doesn't make any difference whether or not twitter exists or who has access to it.
  - 2y ago
NomDePlum 2y ago
Things deemed illegal or not compliant by a jurisdictional entity often have negative consequences for others. Most legal judgements are blunt swords. Fairness is seldom considered. I'm not agreeing with the outcomes here. Just pointing out laws get enforced, if they don't they aren't laws.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  There is no "fake news" law. One was proposed and rejected by our representatives. Then the judge-king published a resolution of sorts which basically rammed the law through anyway. Brazilian constitution says: > Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited What he's doing is censorship, plain and simple. And it's unconstitutional.
guhcampos 2y ago
They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone, but the apps would be gone from the stores, which does not make it much less of a bullshit. Restricting access to X makes sense: the platform has removed themselves from the country, making it impossible to resolve legal and financial disputes in Brazil, so it makes sense they are not allowed to operate in the country anymore. Then again, punishing users that access it through other means is baffling.
- sva_ 2y ago
  > They can't and won't delete any apps from your phone Google can definitely install/delete apps from your phone remotely using Play Store.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  No, it doesn't make sense. The reason they had to pull out of the country is that representatives of X were about to be thrown in jail for an American business not honoring censorship edicts written by this judge. Why not Meta or Google? Because they've honored the censorship orders. When he couldn't find representatives of X, he went after SpaceX and StarLink, even though no law allows him to do so. The judge is simply on a personal vendetta against Elon Musk solely on the basis of political alignment. This isn't baffling, this is leftist totalitarianism at work.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    This, except it's right-wing totalitarianism at work, seeking to silence the left wing (Lula et al), which appears to have won the election. Indeed, before the election and subsequent fallout, the right-wing elmu was friendly towards the right-wing Bolsonaro, who these orders support.
    - slowmovintarget 2y ago
      No. The judge is attempting to silence anyone speaking out against the new leftist government. Meta and Google silently complied. X did not.

cassianoleal 2y ago

Which part of that law have the users of VPNs violated?

Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
the part they just made up of course!