7 ms·
I 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
by guhcampos 2y ago
I 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]
- ripjaygn 2y agoIs BlueSky required to have a legal rep?
- guhcampos 2y agoNot yet, until they do, quite literally. One of the principles Brazilian Law is based off is something called "Principle of Inertia" (which I can't find a proper translation since I keep stumbling into sixth grade Physics). It reasons that the Juditiary Power will must not and does not have to act unless provoked to do so. In practice, this means that while the law states that platforms operating in Brazil need a legal representative, that is not required or enforced until there's a reason to. In this case, it could be if anyone ever sues Bluesky, if they collect payments in local currency or transfer money in/out of the country, or if they provide a service that is regulated such as medical or financial advice. So far, none of these have happened, or have not happened in a scale or frequency that has prompted action. I expect that as people migrate over to Bluesky they will eventually be required to provide a representative or follow the fate of Twitter.
- hagbard_c 2y agoNo, that comes down to shooting the messenger because you don't like what he said. This is usually done by 'the bad guys' and this seems to be the case in Brazil as well.
- guhcampos 2y agoNot at all. See my reply to the other comment.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoThe earlier order ordered Apple and Google to remove VPN apps.
- guhcampos 2y agoYes, and establishes a BRL 50k daily fine for the users themselves if they circumvent the blockage by any means to get access to Twitter. To me, that's punishing the users, who have no part in the legal ordeal, for the incompetence of whatever company or agency which was supposed to block the site.
- frumper 2y agoThe illegal act is using X. The means to enact that is to enforce it at the ISP level. A user finding way to continue to use X is on the user. You may not agree with X being banned, but punishing the users is what should happen when they violate the law.