[deleted]
Twitter, it’s Twitter!
[deleted]
Submitted 2 months ago by hedge@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
Comments
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 2 months ago
don@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Um, excuse me, but I’m very well known for rexing awesome xs on x, and will definitely subx you for what you’ve lemmied here.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 months ago
They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.
Banichan@dormi.zone 2 months ago
“Tweets” is a permanent label of the short form message post. Changing it to “posts” is like calling text messages “essays”.
pipows@lemmy.today 2 months ago
Brazilian here. This a controversial topic, so take what I say as a opinion.
Although Mask is a man child and a scumbag, he is right on this. He is not refusing to comply with local laws, he is refusing to comply with illegal, monocratic decisions from the supreme court.
It is not news that the supreme court had given themselves dictator-like powers. In this case, there is no law that mandates that a social network has to have legal representatives in the country, and there is no law that a social network has to censor specific person, unless they are commiting a crime, which of course require a investigation and the due legal process, all steps that the supreme court had ignored. Moreover, the supreme court is not persecution, so they can’t just make this decision without being summoned.
They’ve been doing that for a while now, in the name of fighting “anti-democratic acts”, which is just a faceless ghost. This is, again, based on no law whatsoever, so the supreme court had taken for themselves persecution and legislative powers, gravely hurting the separation of powers.
Disclaimer: I’m not right leaning, but I’m as libertarian as one can be
salmoura@lemmy.eco.br 2 months ago
I’m not right leaning, but I’m as libertarian as one can be
A right-winger, then? Cool, keep us posted.
pipows@lemmy.today 2 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
TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 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.
jarfil@beehaw.org 2 months ago
A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.
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.
tromars@feddit.org 2 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
moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com [bot] 2 months ago
You’re right on the fact you’re not right leaning. Libertarian are far right.
elfpie@beehaw.org 2 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.
pipows@lemmy.today 2 months ago
I’ll look into it further tomorrow. If I find out that I’m wrong, I’ll edit my comment saying so.
krolden@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
I bet you voted for bolsonaro
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 2 months ago
Twice!!
John_McMurray@beehaw.org 2 months ago
Yeah but reality doesn’t matter here. Good luck
pipows@lemmy.today 2 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
Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 months ago
username checks out :D
tilefan@lemm.ee 2 months ago
finally a fucking headline that mentions the problem
jarfil@beehaw.org 2 months ago
This is going to get interesting:
The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via VPN.
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, that’s the government reaching waaaay beyond what it should without any real laws to back it up, on the other hand, fuck Musk and if this is what it takes to keep gullible people off nazifascist misinformation and propaganda then 🤷♂️.
ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 2 months ago
The law doesn’t function the same everywhere. When you start/run an international business, it is necessary to understand this. When you don’t, things like this happen.
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Ok, but there isn’t anything in the Brazilian body of law that says social media needs to have legal representation in the country to be functional, otherwise TikTok, Reddit and even Lemmy would’ve been blocked long ago, that’s the argument being made. That said, nothing like this has ever happened before, so maybe this could serve as a precedent for a new series of legislations.
vk6flab@lemmy.radio 2 months ago
And many of them are heading to BlueSky…
beepnoise@piefed.social 2 months ago
Well tbf I'm seeing the introdução hashtag trending on Mastodon (on my server it is second)
arthur@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
And Threads
JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 2 months ago
can confirm
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
more countries need to do the same and get twitter to shut down everywhere
Rooskie91@discuss.online 2 months ago
Wow so Brazil has the freest democracy now?
xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil
DdCno1@beehaw.org 2 months ago
On one hand yes, but on the other hand, he also likes to cozy up to dictators to an alarming degree.
ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net 2 months ago
Lol. “Free” i.e. government oppression that aligns with your political views.
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 2 months ago
It’s nice to see that some non-US countries are willing to stand up to this fascist turd.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 months ago
A bit suppressive lol
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 2 months ago
Oh no.
Suppressing fascism.
Awful.
Let me grab my tissues.