5 ms·
Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such. It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory ha
by ffsm8 2y ago
Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such.
It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not.
This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM.
This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition.
- leereeves 2y agoHarriet Tubman was a criminal too. Sometimes being a criminal by defying an unjust law is the best thing you can do.
- ffsm8 2y agoCivil disobedience is something an individual can can do. That's something very different to this situation. The company isn't a person, the CEO could do civil disobedience and order that the company doesn't comply. But that'd be the same as exiting the market, as the government will be forced to take action anyway. And then they'd likely go to jail, achieving nothing. You can't really do civil disobedience while everyone is looking at you, the way to do that is in secret.
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoI struggle to imagine how you would arrive at such a cruel & disturbing allegation, that corporations organizations & institutions must be morally blind. Real life counter example, Leica Freedom Train, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train Overt disobedience versus subversive disobedience can have a risk. Yeah, don't do things that will eliminate your entity from the world. But often you should be willing to take some kind of an L (loss). The best time to fight injustice is as early as possible; push back if you can.
- mikrotikker 2y agoThey're essentially saying that they don't want the US 1st amendment imported into their state. So they should block it like they have and that be that. Poor bastards.
- bsnsxd 2y agobig stretch, this is only twitter, and with plenty of reasoning, history, and back and forward, where twitter has time after time ignored brazillian's court requests.
- mikrotikker 2y agoAnd why should Twitter recognize the Brazilian courts authority on speech?
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoIt has to be case by case assessment of whether the law is just & right. We have a moral obligation to not follow - to practice civil disobedience - against unjust laws. Banning vpns is a bridge to far for me. The state is placing itself too far above the people, demanding control which it is not entitled to, dictating how we might think & connect. Letting a state grow ever more vicious in its enforcement, letting it cut itself off from the world & punish its citizens by denying them access to the internet & technologies that the rest of the world enjoys is their own real power, is the economic-military control they have, if they want to go to war with businesses. That's all they have for power. And it makes them look dumb, shows them to be bullies, and hurts their people. We need some states to get uppity, so it becomes more clear that the Internet doesn't care & that states can do what they want, ban what they want, and the rest of the world will keep moving along. That's exactly what's happening here, and the state is, in my view, making an absurd fool of itself by going so absurdly far in desperation to try to apply the law. Fucking with the app stores just to drive home a grudge match with one service is fucking ludicrous & we should laugh out ass off at these fools.