5 ms·
I'm not sure I agree with Brazil wanting to compel platforms to ban accounts and I don't agree with fining people who try to access the service and if Elon is t
by BadHumans 2y ago
I'm not sure I agree with Brazil wanting to compel platforms to ban accounts and I don't agree with fining people who try to access the service and if Elon is to be believed, I really don't agree with threatening Twitter's legal rep with prison. Elon is also a hypocrite having done the exact thing Brazil is asking for with India and Turkey in the past and he clearly has no problem inventing reasons to ban people who he doesn't like. ElonJet, accounts that campaign for Harris, journalist, etc. Everyone in this situation sucks.
- KerrAvon 2y agoIs there a reason to give Elon the benefit of the doubt for anything at this point?
- mrcsharp 2y agoYes, it is called living in a civilized society.
- BadHumans 2y agoWell no, if someone is a habitual liar or always wrong, then you're free to assume they are lying or wrong. The ordinary opinion of random people is not a court of law where innocence is presumed.
- _heimdall 2y agoYou believe Elon Musk is always wrong? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
- BadHumans 2y agoI'm not talking about Elon. Just making a general statement that you do not always need to give someone the benefit of doubt.
- _heimdall 2y agoSure, I totally agree that you don't always have to give someone the benefit of the doubt. In context though, it is very unclear that you weren't talking about Musk. > Well no, if someone is a habitual liar or always wrong, then you're free to assume they are lying or wrong. The ordinary opinion of random people is not a court of law where innocence is presumed. The GP comment you were replying to specifically mentions giving Elon the benefit of the doubt. Are you implying that you shouldn't give benefit of the doubt to a random person that you deem a habitual liar and therefore assume is always lying or wrong? Or are you implying that Elon is a habitual liar, should be assumed always lying/wrong, and not given the benefit of the doubt?
- guhcampos 2y agoI don't really get the idea behind fining people for using Twitter over VPN's either. That reeks of lawyers unable to understand the basics of how the Internet works. Threatening their legal rep with prison is, however, perfectly reasonable. They have refused to comply with the law several times, were fined several times and have refused to pay such fines several times. With that, they have committed multiple felonies and it makes absolute sense they are faces with the consequences of that.
- thrill 2y agoWhat bullshit. Their rep in Brazil doesn't control anything about the platform or make decisions about disbursement of funds. Doing so is simply a variation of nation-state hostage taking.
- guhcampos 2y agoWell, that's how being a legal representative of any company in the World works.
- thrill 2y agoNegative, representatives do not control their clients - they are the middleman that can explain process and likely result, but they are not the clients.
- guhcampos 2y agoI'm sorry, but you must be confusing what a legal representative is, or we are getting lost in translation here. The legal rep for Twitter in Brazil was not just some Lawyer defending Twitter in court. They were effectively the Owner and President of the Twitter subsidiary in Brazil, and as such are legally responsible for any and all dealings of the company in the country.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]