4 ms·

I'm glad they didn't comply. I don't want social media platforms banning people just because some national government told them to.

prepend 2y ago
I also don’t want companies to have to have offices in every country where they operate. X is big enough but it’s silly of Brazil to require a literal physical presence. They can serve whatever they need electronically to wherever X is these days.
- wslh 2y ago
  It may seem strange, at least to me, but the company Lumen Orbit (YCS24) [1] aims to offer data centers in space. If they, or another similar company, succeed in the future, it could change jurisdictional rules. [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/lumen-orbit https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/lumen-orbit
  - basementcat 2y ago
    Lots of companies are (or will be) offering "cloud services" in LEO, including SpaceX. However, none of that is relevant to this situation.
  - tmottabr 2y ago
    not at all.. twitter servers are in the US yet they are having problems in brazil.. If server are in space and company refuse to abide to each country laws they will have the access to their servers blocked just the same..
  - Qem 2y ago
    Their servers may be in space, but they'll still need to collect ad money from somewhere on Earth.
- guhcampos 2y ago
  It's not about serving them. They have already been served multiple times, refused to comply, got fined and refused to pay the fines. Pulling out their office was simply a means to avoid paying fines, that's all. There's no big motive there but cash. One can argue about the politics of this all day. There are political views to be discussed about the morality of the requests to ban accounts versus the morality of keeping the accounts online, but the law is the law. If you want to operate on a certain country you need to abide by that country's laws, there aren't really any exceptions anywhere in the World. Lots of platforms operate in Brazil without a legal representative, the country is actually very lax about that. There's no Substack or Medium office as far as I know, and I'm writing this comment on Hackernews without any issue. Generally, the legal representation is only required when someone takes legal action against the platform for some reason. Obviously larger platforms like Twitter, Instagram and their likes have lots of legal actions in local courts. They also collect a shitload of ad revenue from local companies, and in both cases they are required to have a local representation. Twitter has laid-off all their engineering and marketing in Brazil when Musk bought it, and just recently decided to close down their legal and finance office to avoid paying the said fines. Whatever the political stand-off that brought them to this, there's no reasonable justification to stand with Twitter now. "I don't aggree with your laws" is not a valid reason for a company to break these laws in any country, for any law.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Not agreeing with the law is always a valid reason to disobey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience > Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law. If you believe the law is immoral, then break the law and accept the consequences. You are always morally responsible for your actions. The fact some of your actions may have been compelled by law does not absolve you. Nazis who were just following orders were still punished.
    - guhcampos 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kranke155 2y ago
  It’s the law there.
TechDebtDevin 2y ago
Well X/Elon is more than happy to comply with censorship and records requests from Western/NATO countries.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but the claim is that the request made by the Brazilian judge doesn't comply with Brazil's own laws. Presumably if X (not Elon) has complied with other censorship requests they found the requests to be lawful.
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    It's not up to X/Musk to decide that though. If they feel that way, there are legal avenues to pursue. They should always comply with the court orders, then challenge them. Not doing so is breaking the law and should be punished as such.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That really depends on leverage. The Brazilian Supreme Court really has very little leverage over Twitter (or Musk directly). Twitter has little to gain by complying with the judge's ban before challenging it in court, but they do have a lot to lose. It'd be a different story if Twitter was being challenged by the US Supreme Court, they have mhch more leverage to damage Twitter if they don't comply.
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users. I'd say that's quite a bit of leverage. Furthermore, SpaceX have had local assets frozen. That seems like some leverage to me. Starlink have now decided to comply with X blockage in the country [0] after Musk rattling his sabre saying they wouldn't. It _feels_ like there is at least some leverage. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798
Glyptodon 2y ago
I think a distinction is to be made between a government and a court.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  Agree. The court is part of the government. It acts as the government as well, within its legal boundaries.
kranke155 2y ago
He seems to have done it for other countries.
arepublicadoceu 2y ago
> I don't want social media platforms banning people just because some national government told them to. Luck for you it was not the national government who banned someone on a social media platform, it was a Court of Justice. They can send someone to jail, expel someone who is illegally in our country and "banning people" on twitter is what gets you? Weird hill to die on.

prepend 2y ago

I also don’t want companies to have to have offices in every country where they operate. X is big enough but it’s silly of Brazil to require a literal physical presence. They can serve whatever they need electronically to wherever X is these days.

wslh 2y ago
It may seem strange, at least to me, but the company Lumen Orbit (YCS24) [1] aims to offer data centers in space. If they, or another similar company, succeed in the future, it could change jurisdictional rules. [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/lumen-orbit https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/lumen-orbit
- basementcat 2y ago
  Lots of companies are (or will be) offering "cloud services" in LEO, including SpaceX. However, none of that is relevant to this situation.
- tmottabr 2y ago
  not at all.. twitter servers are in the US yet they are having problems in brazil.. If server are in space and company refuse to abide to each country laws they will have the access to their servers blocked just the same..
- Qem 2y ago
  Their servers may be in space, but they'll still need to collect ad money from somewhere on Earth.
guhcampos 2y ago
It's not about serving them. They have already been served multiple times, refused to comply, got fined and refused to pay the fines. Pulling out their office was simply a means to avoid paying fines, that's all. There's no big motive there but cash. One can argue about the politics of this all day. There are political views to be discussed about the morality of the requests to ban accounts versus the morality of keeping the accounts online, but the law is the law. If you want to operate on a certain country you need to abide by that country's laws, there aren't really any exceptions anywhere in the World. Lots of platforms operate in Brazil without a legal representative, the country is actually very lax about that. There's no Substack or Medium office as far as I know, and I'm writing this comment on Hackernews without any issue. Generally, the legal representation is only required when someone takes legal action against the platform for some reason. Obviously larger platforms like Twitter, Instagram and their likes have lots of legal actions in local courts. They also collect a shitload of ad revenue from local companies, and in both cases they are required to have a local representation. Twitter has laid-off all their engineering and marketing in Brazil when Musk bought it, and just recently decided to close down their legal and finance office to avoid paying the said fines. Whatever the political stand-off that brought them to this, there's no reasonable justification to stand with Twitter now. "I don't aggree with your laws" is not a valid reason for a company to break these laws in any country, for any law.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Not agreeing with the law is always a valid reason to disobey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience > Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law. If you believe the law is immoral, then break the law and accept the consequences. You are always morally responsible for your actions. The fact some of your actions may have been compelled by law does not absolve you. Nazis who were just following orders were still punished.
  - guhcampos 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kranke155 2y ago
It’s the law there.

TechDebtDevin 2y ago

Well X/Elon is more than happy to comply with censorship and records requests from Western/NATO countries.

_heimdall 2y ago
I'm no lawyer, but the claim is that the request made by the Brazilian judge doesn't comply with Brazil's own laws. Presumably if X (not Elon) has complied with other censorship requests they found the requests to be lawful.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  It's not up to X/Musk to decide that though. If they feel that way, there are legal avenues to pursue. They should always comply with the court orders, then challenge them. Not doing so is breaking the law and should be punished as such.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That really depends on leverage. The Brazilian Supreme Court really has very little leverage over Twitter (or Musk directly). Twitter has little to gain by complying with the judge's ban before challenging it in court, but they do have a lot to lose. It'd be a different story if Twitter was being challenged by the US Supreme Court, they have mhch more leverage to damage Twitter if they don't comply.
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users. I'd say that's quite a bit of leverage. Furthermore, SpaceX have had local assets frozen. That seems like some leverage to me. Starlink have now decided to comply with X blockage in the country [0] after Musk rattling his sabre saying they wouldn't. It _feels_ like there is at least some leverage. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798

Glyptodon 2y ago

I think a distinction is to be made between a government and a court.

cassianoleal 2y ago
Agree. The court is part of the government. It acts as the government as well, within its legal boundaries.

kranke155 2y ago

He seems to have done it for other countries.

arepublicadoceu 2y ago

> I don't want social media platforms banning people just because some national government told them to. Luck for you it was not the national government who banned someone on a social media platform, it was a Court of Justice. They can send someone to jail, expel someone who is illegally in our country and "banning people" on twitter is what gets you? Weird hill to die on.