3 ms·

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 a

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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      You're right, I confused 2 different South American elections and am dumb and sorry.
    - guhcampos 2y ago
      Not to being too much politics into the discussion, but Mr. Morais is hardly a leftist. In fact, he's been put there by the very president that removed Mrs. Dilma Rouseff, Michel Temer, who is quite obviously on the right side of the spectrum.
- guhcampos 2y ago
  I was also baffled by them going after Starlink when it happened. Just like you, I found it absurd to go over a different company just because some person owns stakes on both of them. Then, Starlink refused to block Twitter, and with that they kind of proved the Supreme Court's point that they operate under the same economic organization and are subject to the same leadership. I guess they stepped into their own trap there.
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
Even if the goal of the brazilian judge makes sense, that doesn't make the judge's actions legal. In a country of laws, the end does not justify the means. A thorough explanation of the applicable law, point by point, that demonstrates that everything that is happening here is outrageous : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
- guhcampos 2y ago
  The actions are legal, in the sense they have been approved by the Supreme Court. We can argue about the morality of the Supreme Court deciding on the legality of their own actions, but in practice, they are, by all means, legal. BBC has a decent article that estabilishes a critique of the same points you mentioned in your post: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c4n3wklk255o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c4n3wklk255o some of your complaints are quite fair, some don't. In particular: "The Brazilian constitution specifies that the Supreme Court can only judge those with “privileged jurisdiction" isn't true at all. The Brazilian Constitution states a whole bunch of attributions to the Supreme Court, which you can read (in Portuguese) at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constitui... (search for "DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL") The role you mention, about ruling over "privileged jurisdiction" is one of 20+ attributed roles, a small fraction of their attributions.

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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    You're right, I confused 2 different South American elections and am dumb and sorry.
  - guhcampos 2y ago
    Not to being too much politics into the discussion, but Mr. Morais is hardly a leftist. In fact, he's been put there by the very president that removed Mrs. Dilma Rouseff, Michel Temer, who is quite obviously on the right side of the spectrum.
guhcampos 2y ago
I was also baffled by them going after Starlink when it happened. Just like you, I found it absurd to go over a different company just because some person owns stakes on both of them. Then, Starlink refused to block Twitter, and with that they kind of proved the Supreme Court's point that they operate under the same economic organization and are subject to the same leadership. I guess they stepped into their own trap there.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

Even if the goal of the brazilian judge makes sense, that doesn't make the judge's actions legal. In a country of laws, the end does not justify the means. A thorough explanation of the applicable law, point by point, that demonstrates that everything that is happening here is outrageous : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

guhcampos 2y ago
The actions are legal, in the sense they have been approved by the Supreme Court. We can argue about the morality of the Supreme Court deciding on the legality of their own actions, but in practice, they are, by all means, legal. BBC has a decent article that estabilishes a critique of the same points you mentioned in your post: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c4n3wklk255o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c4n3wklk255o some of your complaints are quite fair, some don't. In particular: "The Brazilian constitution specifies that the Supreme Court can only judge those with “privileged jurisdiction" isn't true at all. The Brazilian Constitution states a whole bunch of attributions to the Supreme Court, which you can read (in Portuguese) at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constitui... (search for "DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL") The role you mention, about ruling over "privileged jurisdiction" is one of 20+ attributed roles, a small fraction of their attributions.