15 ms·

Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

akoboldfrying 1y ago
It will be really interesting to watch how this unfolds. My hypothesis: Meta, X et al. will threaten to just wholesale IP-block the country (not worth the risk), and it will become a game of Chicken. Side note: The density of ads on that page is almost impressive.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  That reaction would be glorious but I doubt it's going to happen. Too much money at stake. They're likely to just accept it, just like they accept chinese control. Brazil wants to become like China. One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. It's quite terrifying. Donald Trump has been threatening sanctions against these people for a while now. What's he waiting for?
  - defrost 1y ago
    By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. The current POTUS, Donald J. Trump declared his admiration for the strong chinese response to the Tiananmen Square protests. * https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananmen-foreshadowing-response-to-george-floyd-protests-2020-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananme... * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-tiananmen-square-china-playboy-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump... ( and numerous other reports since his 1990 comments )
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      He's a bit of a tyrant himself, isn't he? It's alarming but I suppose it's not surprising. Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though.
      - defrost 1y ago
        Watch what people do rather than judge only on what they say. Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-against-free-speech-speak-a-lot-louder-than-his-words-defending-it-252706 https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-agains...
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though Literally kicked the Associated Press out of the White House because they wouldn't toe the line on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America [1]. [1] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-house-bars-ap-reporter-from-oval-office-because-of-ap-style-policy-on-gulf-of-america/ https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-ho...
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. Yes it (or at least the presently ruling faction) absolutely wants that substantively, but with a White Christian nationalist rather than Communist rhetorical focus. Not really the kind of “by that logic...” that is useful for rebutting the argument it targets.
      - defrost 1y ago
        > that is useful for discretion the argument it targets. dissecting? discussing? It serves to make a reader ponder whether an individual (judge or POTUS) sets the mood of an entire country (does Brazil or the US 'want' what a judge or POTUS wants?) and reminds us that the current US administration admires strongarm tactics.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        Your comments are appreciated. I wasn't aware of the information you posted.
  - diego_moita 1y ago
    > Brazil wants to become like China. Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia: reduce every sensible discussion to a leftist conspiracy. > One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. Sure. And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. Because no one lies in WhatsApp, right?
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia Nobody mentioned Bolsonaro. He's history. > And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. You don't have to take it from me. Here's a top Google search result: https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admiradores-do-regime-chines-diz-gilmar-em-julgamento-do-stf-sobre-big-techs,2221045a1908379118035e9bbb981c35i273352b.html https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admi... "We are admirers of the chinese regime." Take it up with whoever wrote that article if you disagree. Either way, refrain from replying to my comments in the future. I really have no inclination to engage with sarcastic "WhatsApp uncle" arguments.
- cvjcvjcvj 1y ago
  Here’s an analogy: If a radio station or TV channel taught a child to cut themselves, self-harm, or drink toilet water, that broadcaster would be held accountable. So how can we allow social media platforms to escape responsibility? Children are dying.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    The problem isn't that a child knows how to cut themselves, it's that they lack guidance in life teaching them why that is a dumb idea, or if too young to learn that, supervising them so that they don't.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    I think this viewpoint is not to be dismissed, but I think a way to improve the analogy would be: What if the programs that that TV channel showed were not custom-built by the channel itself, but rather created on-the-fly by millions of anonymous people?
- EasyMark 1y ago
  I always use an adblocker and that page is a stubborn one, it just keeps blocking after a couple of minutes as the count rises to 100+
potato-peeler 1y ago
I suppose the primary issue is lack of moderation on these platforms. I always contend that, if you don’t say certain things to a person face to face, you should have the decorum and decency to not do that in digital space. And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community. The primary issue mentioned in the article is illegal content. That certainly requires high level of moderation. Brazilian courts have the intent correct to hold social media platforms responsible if they don’t moderate. However, who knows how the execution of this judgement will look like.
- bilekas 1y ago
  > And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community. This is always the line that will be crossed though, there are some comedians who I find in bad taste, but I'm not going to tell them they can't make their jokes. There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate. It might be done better, but then the same people will complain that social media is stifling free speech when their own narratives were found to be blocked. But lets see how it plays out. I don't see why anyone would even attempt to create a social aspect to their services in Brazil with this hanging over their head though.
  - potato-peeler 1y ago
    > There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate. I don’t think it is a question of entitlement. Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech. Similarly, the core issue from the article is stated as illegal content. One can only imagine why social media platforms don’t want to take action on that.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      >Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech. You're essentially making the claim that somebody shouldn't be able to say something that offends some people even if it's true, which is a great way to shut down discourse and enforce the status quo, because there's no limit to what people can claim to be offended by.
diego_moita 1y ago
Good! We need to go further in this direction. If magazines, newspapers, movies and TV stations are liable for what they publish why shouldn't social media also be? The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice filtering of what is posted. We shouldn't expect the U.S. to advance this cause. Their congress is too deep in the pockets of lobbyists to be accountable to public interest. It has to come from the E.U. and responsible governments. Edit: this is a repetition of history. There are a lot of tragic examples of tragedies sparked by publications meant to extract profits from people's paranoia and fear. The most famous one is the witch hunt started by the book Malleus Maleficarum[1] that caused more than 30 000 deaths. We created means to contain these abuses in new media too. The genocide of Rohingya people could have been avoided if Facebook were liable for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
- flenserboy 1y ago
  Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, could citizens find a platform willing to allow them to share their opinions, creations, and find the like-minded?
  - diego_moita 1y ago
    Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment? I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.
    - saynay 1y ago
      It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person. Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.
close04 1y ago
There's probably a lot of politics behind this judgement that shaped it. But to a certain degree it's fair. Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Is any other sector spared any accountability when they know the customer is breaking the law? This will be expensive for the company because they have to not just moderate, but do it under a patchwork of different countries' laws. But they were more than happy to make bank for years from this, put all that money to good use. It will also create some opportunity for abuse but then again so is allowing anything and everything on the platform.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it? That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >as its content is user generated Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content. Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined. So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?
AndrewStephens 1y ago
Personally I think that social media companies should be at least in part liable for content posted by their users. There is a tendency to treat social media as a mere conduit, like the post office, that should not be responsible for content but the post office doesn't decide who sees what or profits from advertising inserted into mail. I thought about this a few months ago and came up with this <strike>rant</strike>completely reasonable proposal[0] that tries to balance internet freedom with assigning limited responsibility for user content published by web sites. Summary: under some conditions based on the number of views, whether any money changed hands, and whether the post was widely shared or mostly private, a publisher should be liable for some of the damages caused by a post. [0] https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%2C_a_proposal.html https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%...
- sabalaba 1y ago
  USPS profits from advertising inserted into mail. https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm
  - AndrewStephens 1y ago
    Sorry, I was imprecise with my comparison. A better analogy would be that the USPS doesn't scan your post to figure out which pieces of mail you are likely to actually look at and then affix stickers to those letters advertising related products.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      USPS scans your mails and then includes advertising with this scans when you get the feed in informed delivery.
      - atrus 1y ago
        Yes, but the advertising images are directly related (a T-mobile mailpiece gets a T-mobile png)
littlestymaar 1y ago
Finally! I've been yelling at the clouds for years now how it made zero sense to apply “hosting services” rules for social media when they haven't been doing mere content hosting for years: with their algorithmic feeds curating what everyone is viewing they are literally acting as content editors, and as such it made no sense to me that they didn't have the same obligations as any other other editors out there. In fact, because of them the regulation on mere hosting services have increased sharply for no reasons, just because the regulators wanted to have more control on social medias.
bethekidyouwant 1y ago
Who decides what you are allowed to say or see?
- HelloMcFly 1y ago
  They already have their finger on the scale with this due to their algorithms. They're pushing these posts to people, not just letting people see posts from communities they have chosen to join. To me the algorithmic nature of post visibility is what muddies the water here and puts them in the place of promoter of speech vs. neutral platform for speech. No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
- diego_moita 1y ago
  You are confusing "being liable" with censorship. They're not the same thing, if you care to know. The first is about accountability, about being responsible for the consequences of one's acts. The second is preemptive coercion and is indeed a tyrant's basic tool.
  - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
    Who decides which actions have said consequences for which someone is liable?
    - diego_moita 1y ago
      Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. It will depend on the specifics of each case: libel, incitement to violence, etc. That's how it works for books, magazines, newspapers. That's why they have legal advisors to define the boundaries of what and how they can publish.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. The supreme court has decided that the court order requirement for removing content is unconstitutional. There is no "after the fact investigation and due process" anymore. Platforms are now expected to police themselves or face arbitrary fines.
ufo 1y ago
For context, it's useful to remind that after the last presidential election, Brazil withstood a coup attempt similar to USA's January 6th. Since then, the courts have taken a tougher stance against social media, including a country-wide blockage of X/Twitter last year. We can expect that social media companies will lobby against this. In Brazil they find allies in the far-right which are also interested in moderation-free social media. For instance, two weeks ago Meta and Google sponsored an event from Bolsonaro's PL party about social media and AI, including lectures to train party members into how to effectively employ social media and AI tools. https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2025/05/21/pl-anuncia-seminario-de-comunicacao-com-bolsonaro-e-michelle-e-apoio-do-google-e-da-meta.ghtml https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2025/05/21/pl-anun...
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  The real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself. Judges have always been "gods" in this country, and the supreme court in particular has been blatantly grabbing power since at least 2019. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself The side that storms the capital sort of gives up its ability to call the other illegitimate in a democracy. That doesn't mean they're right. Just that the situtation in Brazil clearly escalated to the point that suspending the status quo is if not merited, highly historically precedented.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again. This "storming" amounted to little more than a protest. If only that had been enough to fix things. I watched those judges censor political speech as "fake news" throughout the entire 2022 election. Then they showboated in public about how they had been personally responsible for the former president's defeat.
cesarb 1y ago
I always like going to the source for things like that. As the article mentioned, the voting hasn't concluded yet. This article has a link to the seven votes so far, with the full explanation for each one: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-analise-de-recursos-sobe-normas-do-marco-civil-da-internet/ https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-anal...
- cvjcvjcvj 1y ago
  You are wrong, sorry. The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. With only 11 justices, even if the remaining four voted against, the majority would still be maintained (6 votes vs. 5). But there’s only one more fascist judge left on the bench, so the final tally will end up 9 to 2. The decision is final.
  - cesarb 1y ago
    > The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. Even then, the detailed justification for each vote is interesting. Just the first one is nearly 200 pages, and presents the whole history of the discussion, mentions precedents from not only the country but also about related laws all over the world, explains what would be the consequences of this particular article being considered invalid (it's not a simple "make them liable", it's the removal of a specific article which prevented them from being liable, which means other articles still apply), and so on. This is much more detailed and nuanced than what a single six-paragraph article can tell. That's the reason I prefer to go to the source for things like that.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      I have no idea how Brazil courts work. In the US the supreme court often has 200 page opinion full of high-IQ hot air, which all sound very nice and nuanced. But in practice they know damn well what they're really doing is a long wink and a nod and then they just deny cert anytime the lower courts do their real bidding because they know everything they wrote was bullshit and they don't want to have to hold themselves to it, the point was just to keep up appearances while rolling out the red carpet.
msgodel 1y ago
Heh, good. "Social media" has always been worse than just running a personal website. Especially now that most social media platforms are walling themselves off from the rest of the web.
cvjcvjcvj 1y ago
Thanks god.
thrance 1y ago
Censorship is no longer the tool of choice of wannabe dictators. Instead, the focus is now on editorializing of communication channels. Open up the front page of X in a private tab, and see how everything is far right propaganda. Who needs to censor anything anymore? Simply downrank whatever displeases you into oblivion. Good for Brazil, maybe they can slow down the fascist disease that rots our democracies from the inside.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  I think they can rely on the general lack of critical thinking skills in the general populace as more effective than constraining information. who have been taught to trust what they read, unless it is dead obvious that what they're reading is fiction (like a novel or comic book). All they have to do is flood social media with propaganda and drown out any truth to be found there. It's a very popular tactic on X around election time.
amatheus 1y ago
Well, if social media can profit from user content it should be liable too right?
timbit42 1y ago
If they manipulate the feed (add, hide, reorder) then they should be held liable for user content.

It will be really interesting to watch how this unfolds. My hypothesis: Meta, X et al. will threaten to just wholesale IP-block the country (not worth the risk), and it will become a game of Chicken. Side note: The density of ads on that page is almost impressive.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
That reaction would be glorious but I doubt it's going to happen. Too much money at stake. They're likely to just accept it, just like they accept chinese control. Brazil wants to become like China. One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. It's quite terrifying. Donald Trump has been threatening sanctions against these people for a while now. What's he waiting for?
- defrost 1y ago
  By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. The current POTUS, Donald J. Trump declared his admiration for the strong chinese response to the Tiananmen Square protests. * https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananmen-foreshadowing-response-to-george-floyd-protests-2020-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananme... * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-tiananmen-square-china-playboy-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump... ( and numerous other reports since his 1990 comments )
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    He's a bit of a tyrant himself, isn't he? It's alarming but I suppose it's not surprising. Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though.
    - defrost 1y ago
      Watch what people do rather than judge only on what they say. Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-against-free-speech-speak-a-lot-louder-than-his-words-defending-it-252706 https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-agains...
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though Literally kicked the Associated Press out of the White House because they wouldn't toe the line on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America [1]. [1] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-house-bars-ap-reporter-from-oval-office-because-of-ap-style-policy-on-gulf-of-america/ https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-ho...
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. Yes it (or at least the presently ruling faction) absolutely wants that substantively, but with a White Christian nationalist rather than Communist rhetorical focus. Not really the kind of “by that logic...” that is useful for rebutting the argument it targets.
    - defrost 1y ago
      > that is useful for discretion the argument it targets. dissecting? discussing? It serves to make a reader ponder whether an individual (judge or POTUS) sets the mood of an entire country (does Brazil or the US 'want' what a judge or POTUS wants?) and reminds us that the current US administration admires strongarm tactics.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        Your comments are appreciated. I wasn't aware of the information you posted.
- diego_moita 1y ago
  > Brazil wants to become like China. Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia: reduce every sensible discussion to a leftist conspiracy. > One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. Sure. And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. Because no one lies in WhatsApp, right?
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia Nobody mentioned Bolsonaro. He's history. > And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. You don't have to take it from me. Here's a top Google search result: https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admiradores-do-regime-chines-diz-gilmar-em-julgamento-do-stf-sobre-big-techs,2221045a1908379118035e9bbb981c35i273352b.html https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admi... "We are admirers of the chinese regime." Take it up with whoever wrote that article if you disagree. Either way, refrain from replying to my comments in the future. I really have no inclination to engage with sarcastic "WhatsApp uncle" arguments.
cvjcvjcvj 1y ago
Here’s an analogy: If a radio station or TV channel taught a child to cut themselves, self-harm, or drink toilet water, that broadcaster would be held accountable. So how can we allow social media platforms to escape responsibility? Children are dying.
- ty6853 1y ago
  The problem isn't that a child knows how to cut themselves, it's that they lack guidance in life teaching them why that is a dumb idea, or if too young to learn that, supervising them so that they don't.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  I think this viewpoint is not to be dismissed, but I think a way to improve the analogy would be: What if the programs that that TV channel showed were not custom-built by the channel itself, but rather created on-the-fly by millions of anonymous people?
EasyMark 1y ago
I always use an adblocker and that page is a stubborn one, it just keeps blocking after a couple of minutes as the count rises to 100+

potato-peeler 1y ago

I suppose the primary issue is lack of moderation on these platforms. I always contend that, if you don’t say certain things to a person face to face, you should have the decorum and decency to not do that in digital space. And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community. The primary issue mentioned in the article is illegal content. That certainly requires high level of moderation. Brazilian courts have the intent correct to hold social media platforms responsible if they don’t moderate. However, who knows how the execution of this judgement will look like.

bilekas 1y ago
> And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community. This is always the line that will be crossed though, there are some comedians who I find in bad taste, but I'm not going to tell them they can't make their jokes. There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate. It might be done better, but then the same people will complain that social media is stifling free speech when their own narratives were found to be blocked. But lets see how it plays out. I don't see why anyone would even attempt to create a social aspect to their services in Brazil with this hanging over their head though.
- potato-peeler 1y ago
  > There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate. I don’t think it is a question of entitlement. Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech. Similarly, the core issue from the article is stated as illegal content. One can only imagine why social media platforms don’t want to take action on that.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    >Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech. You're essentially making the claim that somebody shouldn't be able to say something that offends some people even if it's true, which is a great way to shut down discourse and enforce the status quo, because there's no limit to what people can claim to be offended by.

diego_moita 1y ago

Good! We need to go further in this direction. If magazines, newspapers, movies and TV stations are liable for what they publish why shouldn't social media also be? The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice filtering of what is posted. We shouldn't expect the U.S. to advance this cause. Their congress is too deep in the pockets of lobbyists to be accountable to public interest. It has to come from the E.U. and responsible governments. Edit: this is a repetition of history. There are a lot of tragic examples of tragedies sparked by publications meant to extract profits from people's paranoia and fear. The most famous one is the witch hunt started by the book Malleus Maleficarum[1] that caused more than 30 000 deaths. We created means to contain these abuses in new media too. The genocide of Rohingya people could have been avoided if Facebook were liable for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

flenserboy 1y ago
Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, could citizens find a platform willing to allow them to share their opinions, creations, and find the like-minded?
- diego_moita 1y ago
  Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment? I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.
  - saynay 1y ago
    It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person. Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.

close04 1y ago

There's probably a lot of politics behind this judgement that shaped it. But to a certain degree it's fair. Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Is any other sector spared any accountability when they know the customer is breaking the law? This will be expensive for the company because they have to not just moderate, but do it under a patchwork of different countries' laws. But they were more than happy to make bank for years from this, put all that money to good use. It will also create some opportunity for abuse but then again so is allowing anything and everything on the platform.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it? That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >as its content is user generated Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content. Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined. So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?

AndrewStephens 1y ago

Personally I think that social media companies should be at least in part liable for content posted by their users. There is a tendency to treat social media as a mere conduit, like the post office, that should not be responsible for content but the post office doesn't decide who sees what or profits from advertising inserted into mail. I thought about this a few months ago and came up with this <strike>rant</strike>completely reasonable proposal[0] that tries to balance internet freedom with assigning limited responsibility for user content published by web sites. Summary: under some conditions based on the number of views, whether any money changed hands, and whether the post was widely shared or mostly private, a publisher should be liable for some of the damages caused by a post. [0] https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%2C_a_proposal.html https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%...

sabalaba 1y ago
USPS profits from advertising inserted into mail. https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm
- AndrewStephens 1y ago
  Sorry, I was imprecise with my comparison. A better analogy would be that the USPS doesn't scan your post to figure out which pieces of mail you are likely to actually look at and then affix stickers to those letters advertising related products.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    USPS scans your mails and then includes advertising with this scans when you get the feed in informed delivery.
    - atrus 1y ago
      Yes, but the advertising images are directly related (a T-mobile mailpiece gets a T-mobile png)

littlestymaar 1y ago

Finally! I've been yelling at the clouds for years now how it made zero sense to apply “hosting services” rules for social media when they haven't been doing mere content hosting for years: with their algorithmic feeds curating what everyone is viewing they are literally acting as content editors, and as such it made no sense to me that they didn't have the same obligations as any other other editors out there. In fact, because of them the regulation on mere hosting services have increased sharply for no reasons, just because the regulators wanted to have more control on social medias.

bethekidyouwant 1y ago

Who decides what you are allowed to say or see?

HelloMcFly 1y ago
They already have their finger on the scale with this due to their algorithms. They're pushing these posts to people, not just letting people see posts from communities they have chosen to join. To me the algorithmic nature of post visibility is what muddies the water here and puts them in the place of promoter of speech vs. neutral platform for speech. No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
diego_moita 1y ago
You are confusing "being liable" with censorship. They're not the same thing, if you care to know. The first is about accountability, about being responsible for the consequences of one's acts. The second is preemptive coercion and is indeed a tyrant's basic tool.
- bethekidyouwant 1y ago
  Who decides which actions have said consequences for which someone is liable?
  - diego_moita 1y ago
    Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. It will depend on the specifics of each case: libel, incitement to violence, etc. That's how it works for books, magazines, newspapers. That's why they have legal advisors to define the boundaries of what and how they can publish.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. The supreme court has decided that the court order requirement for removing content is unconstitutional. There is no "after the fact investigation and due process" anymore. Platforms are now expected to police themselves or face arbitrary fines.

ufo 1y ago

For context, it's useful to remind that after the last presidential election, Brazil withstood a coup attempt similar to USA's January 6th. Since then, the courts have taken a tougher stance against social media, including a country-wide blockage of X/Twitter last year. We can expect that social media companies will lobby against this. In Brazil they find allies in the far-right which are also interested in moderation-free social media. For instance, two weeks ago Meta and Google sponsored an event from Bolsonaro's PL party about social media and AI, including lectures to train party members into how to effectively employ social media and AI tools. https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2025/05/21/pl-anuncia-seminario-de-comunicacao-com-bolsonaro-e-michelle-e-apoio-do-google-e-da-meta.ghtml https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2025/05/21/pl-anun...

matheusmoreira 1y ago
The real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself. Judges have always been "gods" in this country, and the supreme court in particular has been blatantly grabbing power since at least 2019. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself The side that storms the capital sort of gives up its ability to call the other illegitimate in a democracy. That doesn't mean they're right. Just that the situtation in Brazil clearly escalated to the point that suspending the status quo is if not merited, highly historically precedented.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again. This "storming" amounted to little more than a protest. If only that had been enough to fix things. I watched those judges censor political speech as "fake news" throughout the entire 2022 election. Then they showboated in public about how they had been personally responsible for the former president's defeat.

cesarb 1y ago

I always like going to the source for things like that. As the article mentioned, the voting hasn't concluded yet. This article has a link to the seven votes so far, with the full explanation for each one: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-analise-de-recursos-sobe-normas-do-marco-civil-da-internet/ https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-anal...

cvjcvjcvj 1y ago
You are wrong, sorry. The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. With only 11 justices, even if the remaining four voted against, the majority would still be maintained (6 votes vs. 5). But there’s only one more fascist judge left on the bench, so the final tally will end up 9 to 2. The decision is final.
- cesarb 1y ago
  > The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. Even then, the detailed justification for each vote is interesting. Just the first one is nearly 200 pages, and presents the whole history of the discussion, mentions precedents from not only the country but also about related laws all over the world, explains what would be the consequences of this particular article being considered invalid (it's not a simple "make them liable", it's the removal of a specific article which prevented them from being liable, which means other articles still apply), and so on. This is much more detailed and nuanced than what a single six-paragraph article can tell. That's the reason I prefer to go to the source for things like that.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I have no idea how Brazil courts work. In the US the supreme court often has 200 page opinion full of high-IQ hot air, which all sound very nice and nuanced. But in practice they know damn well what they're really doing is a long wink and a nod and then they just deny cert anytime the lower courts do their real bidding because they know everything they wrote was bullshit and they don't want to have to hold themselves to it, the point was just to keep up appearances while rolling out the red carpet.

msgodel 1y ago

Heh, good. "Social media" has always been worse than just running a personal website. Especially now that most social media platforms are walling themselves off from the rest of the web.

cvjcvjcvj 1y ago

Thanks god.

thrance 1y ago

Censorship is no longer the tool of choice of wannabe dictators. Instead, the focus is now on editorializing of communication channels. Open up the front page of X in a private tab, and see how everything is far right propaganda. Who needs to censor anything anymore? Simply downrank whatever displeases you into oblivion. Good for Brazil, maybe they can slow down the fascist disease that rots our democracies from the inside.

EasyMark 1y ago
I think they can rely on the general lack of critical thinking skills in the general populace as more effective than constraining information. who have been taught to trust what they read, unless it is dead obvious that what they're reading is fiction (like a novel or comic book). All they have to do is flood social media with propaganda and drown out any truth to be found there. It's a very popular tactic on X around election time.

amatheus 1y ago

Well, if social media can profit from user content it should be liable too right?

timbit42 1y ago

If they manipulate the feed (add, hide, reorder) then they should be held liable for user content.