5 ms·

Nobody has been talking about arresting Musk himself, rather employees or representatives of Twitter who are required to be present in Brazil just for this spec

Nobody has been talking about arresting Musk himself, rather employees or representatives of Twitter who are required to be present in Brazil just for this specific reason (i.e. so that they could be arrested and used as bargaining chips to force the foreign company to do whatever the government/("independent") judiciary wants. Also I really don't understand your overall point.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jrflowers 2y ago
My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. This is about a guy who faces no personal consequences whatsoever choosing to ignore court orders and a government penalizing his business for that choice. There is some speculation that maybe the judge is acting illegally but I haven’t seen anyone familiar with Brazilian constitutional law say that. There is also speculation that the judge is acting unethically, though the only “ethical” alternative offered is “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to. If the judge is acting illegally I sure hope the citizens of Brazil address that. If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular on his own website then I hope he continues to do so.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. I wouldn't necessarily use words like 'good' and 'evil' here but the fact that a judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system. Genuinely curious how can someone defend something like that? > “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to. I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point. even if it complies with Brazilian laws why would that matter at all? North Korea and Russia and all similar countries also have "laws"... > If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? The implication being that no platform/social network can be trustworthy and ethical unless it cooperates with (semi)authoritarian governments?
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    > judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system This is where you are inserting “arbitrarily” as both a statement of fact and moral wrongness. Every single court in every single country has the ability to issue court orders on businesses that operate in that country. It is true in the US, China, the UK, North Korea, France, Australia, Myanmar, Spain, etc. Name a country! That country has judges that can do things that you do not like. Even things regarding your personal definition of acceptable limitations on freedoms, speech included. And it can seem arbitrary to you. Your issue is not with Brazil’s court, your issue is with courts in general. Except for… > I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point. This is a thread about Twitter being blocked. Is there an any other action taken by the Brazilian supreme court that you have an issue with? If not, this is not a concern about the Brazilian constitution, this is a petulant billionaire screaming “dictator!” loud enough from his soapbox that even people that aren’t in his regular retinue of credulous followers fall for it. > So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? If the judge is following the law, and his only actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law, then the judge has committed no sin at all. Anyway all of that aside, all of this actually stems from Elon Musk refusing to comply with an investigation and court orders around an actual attempted coup in that country. Musk’s credulous supporters will either say “that’s not true because Elon posted that it’s about something else” or “actually the coup should have happened because Musk said the current government is bad and we should support undemocratic government overthrows because Elon says they are good” His side of this is literally nonsense. It is defended by unserious people.
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      > your issue is with courts in general Not all laws are equal, just like not all countries and courts are. Some are more authoritarian and arbitrary than others and therefore inherently less legitimate. > His side of this is literally nonsense > actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law Musk is a jerk, I get it and fully agree with that. How is this relevant, though? Also you really have no issue with the attempted VPN ban and fines for individual who are using Twitter? Or a legal system that could allow something like that? Really?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jrflowers 2y ago

My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. This is about a guy who faces no personal consequences whatsoever choosing to ignore court orders and a government penalizing his business for that choice. There is some speculation that maybe the judge is acting illegally but I haven’t seen anyone familiar with Brazilian constitutional law say that. There is also speculation that the judge is acting unethically, though the only “ethical” alternative offered is “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to. If the judge is acting illegally I sure hope the citizens of Brazil address that. If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular on his own website then I hope he continues to do so.

Wytwwww 2y ago
> My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong. I wouldn't necessarily use words like 'good' and 'evil' here but the fact that a judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system. Genuinely curious how can someone defend something like that? > “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to. I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point. even if it complies with Brazilian laws why would that matter at all? North Korea and Russia and all similar countries also have "laws"... > If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? The implication being that no platform/social network can be trustworthy and ethical unless it cooperates with (semi)authoritarian governments?
- jrflowers 2y ago
  > judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system This is where you are inserting “arbitrarily” as both a statement of fact and moral wrongness. Every single court in every single country has the ability to issue court orders on businesses that operate in that country. It is true in the US, China, the UK, North Korea, France, Australia, Myanmar, Spain, etc. Name a country! That country has judges that can do things that you do not like. Even things regarding your personal definition of acceptable limitations on freedoms, speech included. And it can seem arbitrary to you. Your issue is not with Brazil’s court, your issue is with courts in general. Except for… > I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point. This is a thread about Twitter being blocked. Is there an any other action taken by the Brazilian supreme court that you have an issue with? If not, this is not a concern about the Brazilian constitution, this is a petulant billionaire screaming “dictator!” loud enough from his soapbox that even people that aren’t in his regular retinue of credulous followers fall for it. > So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? If the judge is following the law, and his only actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law, then the judge has committed no sin at all. Anyway all of that aside, all of this actually stems from Elon Musk refusing to comply with an investigation and court orders around an actual attempted coup in that country. Musk’s credulous supporters will either say “that’s not true because Elon posted that it’s about something else” or “actually the coup should have happened because Musk said the current government is bad and we should support undemocratic government overthrows because Elon says they are good” His side of this is literally nonsense. It is defended by unserious people.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > your issue is with courts in general Not all laws are equal, just like not all countries and courts are. Some are more authoritarian and arbitrary than others and therefore inherently less legitimate. > His side of this is literally nonsense > actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law Musk is a jerk, I get it and fully agree with that. How is this relevant, though? Also you really have no issue with the attempted VPN ban and fines for individual who are using Twitter? Or a legal system that could allow something like that? Really?