3 ms·

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

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
    Civil disobedience is fine for citizens. Companies are not citizens.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kranke155 2y ago
It’s the law there.

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
  Civil disobedience is fine for citizens. Companies are not citizens.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kranke155 2y ago

It’s the law there.