Comment on [deleted]

pipows@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• salmoura@lemmy.eco.br ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m not right leaning, but I’m as libertarian as one can be

  A right-winger, then? Cool, keep us posted.

  source

  • pipows@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Libertarian is not right-wing (at least as what right-wing and libertarian means here, maybe it is not the same in the US?)

    The right is conservative. It is religion based, against the liberation of drugs, usually not concerned with LGBT or women rights. Libertarianism is none of this, since it most concerned with individual freedom

    source

    • Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology though, it’s pro corporate deregulation and lasseiz-faire capitalism. If you’re pro individual freedom, but opposed to right-wing ideas then the closest thing you can be is an Anarchist.

      source

      • FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Cali is correct.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • John_McMurray@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Neither of those concepts are right wing.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • zbyte64@awful.systems ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s all about individual freedom until you start asking libertarians about the rights of kids and contractual indentured servitude.

      source

      • jdeath@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        but almost no two libertarians will agree about those things. if you think there is only one “blessed” or accepted viewpoint on those topics, you’ve been duped.

        for example on the rights of kids. there will be somebody who will argue they fully own themselves and parents are never allowed to hit children or otherwise harm them. then there will be some idiot who argues that because babies are helpless and the parents made it, that the parents “own” the child until some point and can do what they want with it. other libertarians will have even more differing viewpoints.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • LukeZaz@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t know if libertarianism courts a different audience in Brazil, but in the U.S. it has a very rabidly right-wing audience who effectively want to tear down as much government as possible, and who view “your freedom ends at my face” as an insult. It’s the ideology of an extraordinarily unregulated market – a true “free market” – which is a monopolistic and wildly unethical disaster waiting to happen.

      Anarcho-capitalism, which your username references, is all of that, only more. So you might understand why effectively everyone here is going to treat that with extreme suspicion.

      source

      • pipows@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        who effectively want to tear down as much government as possible, […]. It’s the ideology of an extraordinarily unregulated market – a true “free market”

        I agree with that.

        which is a monopolistic and wildly unethical disaster waiting to happen.

        I obviously don’t agree with that. Monopolies depend on the government to exist. I will not elaborate further because I’m not feeling like arguing with strangers on the internet today

        who view “your freedom ends at my face” as an insult

        I really don’t know what that means

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • arthur@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, that can be different in other places. From a brazilian perspective, there is no “left” on US mainstream politics. There is only fascist-right, conservative right and center-right.

      source
    • John_McMurray@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • JayTreeman@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        ‘Libertarianism isn’t right wing in one country because it’s a magic country where the corporate owned media has brainwashed me to not understanding what actual left wing thought is , and that it has a centuries long history, but I’ll completely ignore that because learning is hard’

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• TWeaK@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

  Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.

  To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.

  source

  • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

    Not everywhere.

    Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

    Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

    To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens.

    A very poor example; Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC.

    The EU at its top level creates “Directives”, which member states then are bound to transpose into their national Civil Law systems. Judges can interprete that law in different ways, none of which creates a precedent. Only a country’s Supreme Court decision creates a precedent for that country, but even then it can be recurred up to the EU Tribunal, which has the last saying.

    source

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

      Not everywhere.

      Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

      Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

      Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

      Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

      While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

      Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

      guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

      Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

      The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

      This is exactly what I said.

      The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

      The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

      linkedin.com/…/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexan…

      To summarise:

      • What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
      • My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

      ---

      Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

      But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

      source

      • jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You say I don’t read… then proceed to explain the same that I already said? Ok.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • tromars@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The GDPR is a regulation (that’s what the R stands for), not a directive. Directives must be transposed into national law by the member states, while regulations apply directly

    source

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

      source
• moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com [bot] ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You’re right on the fact you’re not right leaning. Libertarian are far right.

  source
• elfpie@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I agree there’s abuse, but there are laws:

  Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.

  Both in Portuguese.

  source

  • pipows@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ll look into it further tomorrow. If I find out that I’m wrong, I’ll edit my comment saying so.

    source
• krolden@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I bet you voted for bolsonaro

  source

  • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Twice!!

    source
• John_McMurray@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah but reality doesn’t matter here. Good luck

  source

  • pipows@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I would not put it like that, I’m not that arrogant. Lemmy is, in its majority, left leaning, so of course people will disagree with me, but that’s not to say “reality doesn’t matter”.

    I’m really surprised that my post was not down voted to nothingness

    source
• Gsus4@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  username checks out :D

  source