About the X block in Brazil.
Brazilian supreme court were asking X to close/suspend/moderate:
- accounts spreading fake news
- accounts spreading hate speech
- accounts spreading fascism/nazism ideology
- accounts spreading racism
- accounts spreading anti-lgbtqia hate speech
- accounts demanding to close the supreme court
- accounts trying to create disarmony between federal powers, using fake news (executive branch, judiciary branch and legislative branch)
- accounts asking to have another militar dictatorship government instead of democracy
- accounts using free speech to attack judges, legislators, executives and governament branch leaders
- accounts using free speech to haras other people
And a lot, lot more.
They tried several times to talk with them, but twitter refused to comply or respond.
Supreme court is doing their job to secure our Constitution and our Brazilian democracy.
Twitter/X is a toxic non-moderated place right now, it's a risk for us and it's refusing to control their network, it's refusing to comply with Brazilian laws and Brazilian judiciarty court decisions.
That's what's happening.
That's the true.
If you have question I'm here to help!
reshared this
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to /home/gutocarvalho :bolha: • •Ok. I'll bite.
I understand that one of the orders that twitter refused to follow was to appoint a legal representative of twitter in Brazil.
My questions are...
like this
Wilfried Klaebe and oldguycrusty like this.
oldguycrusty reshared this.
Renato
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear
I don't know if the legal representative would be arrested right away, but they would be under such risk for sure. But I don't see human's right violation there. I don't know what is your country but I would bet that you can be arrested if you refuse to comply with judiciary decisions.
You seem to be arguing that this person would have not the power to comply with the decisions, but if that's the case, this person is not an actual representative, right?
Kari'boka likes this.
Renato
in reply to Renato • • •The decision is based on the following reasoning. Twitter is not following the brasilian law. There's no one to respond in front of court for Twitter. Then Twitter cannot operate anymore.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Renato • •Renato
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear
I was trying to explain the reasoning behind the decision. I don't know what to think about all that to be honest.
But yeah, I don't see how a decision by brasilian supreme court could have effect beyond Brazil.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Renato • •Yeah. I was a little sharp with that reply, and I didn't mean to be.
I've been following the intersection of tech and law for nearly 30 years, so I'm aware of many of the issues.
Generally, I see a country or court blocking websites as OK, as long as the decisions are consistent with the law. However extraterritoriality, and denial of liberty of innocents are among the things I can't accept.
ActionLuzifer likes this.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Renato • •Content moderation in social media companies is centralized.
The local representative would have nothing more than advisory powers, and we know Musk doesn't take advice.
Chip Unicorn likes this.
Renato
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear
I understand that. But I don't see how someone who cannot make decisions can be a legal representative for a company. Being legal representative is exactly about being legally responsible for it.
The closing of the Twitter office in Brazil was precisely to avoid law enforcement, and Musk said that publicly.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Renato • •Which leaves the judge with the course he took.
But to expect that a local representative with no content moderation authority should go to jail for Musk's refusal to take down stuff is horrifying. To expect that a local representative would have content moderation authority is to fail to understand how social media companies work. This is something the judge should not have ordered.
Chip Unicorn likes this.
Renato
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •I see your point. But, legally, if someone took the job, they would be signing a paper saying that they take legal responsibility for Musk's decisions in Brazil, since they have no actual power. On the other hand the Judge could rule that the since this person have no actual power they cannot be the legal representative and cannot be indicted... but we are at the realm of speculation now.
SJ
Unknown parent • • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •I accept all of that -- no argument.
But were the fines to be levied on the representative personally (i.e. "If twitter won't pay the fines, we'll make you personally liable for paying them")?
Wilfried Klaebe
in reply to SJ • • •@jeffries Who else?
How else would you envision enforcement of fines?
@gutocarvalho @eibhear
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Wilfried Klaebe • •If you make it about the individual, then you have a serious human rights issue on your hands.
Hella likes this.
Wilfried Klaebe
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear They could quit...
It's quite a normal thing to imprison CEOs if their company does not pay fines.
@gutocarvalho @jeffries
Kari'boka likes this.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Wilfried Klaebe • •CEOs, yes.
Not appointed representatives for what the CEO does or fails to do.
Quitting is hardly an option if you've already had a warrant for your arrest issued:
Judge: "Jail that person!"
Policeman: "Why?"
Judge: "Because his boss broke the law"
Staff member: "I've quit -- I don't work there any more"
Boss: *continues breaking the law*
Judge: "Dammit. Foiled again!"
like this
Hella and Oblomov like this.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •that is actually what is legally being signed up for when you are the director of a branch of a multinational company
You're not just a mouth piece, you have a responsibility to ensure the company abides by local laws.
Kari'boka likes this.
SJ
in reply to Wilfried Klaebe • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • •Yes. But, if the office is shut down, and the judge says: "open that office again so that I can arrest one of your employees because you won't comply with my orders", who would apply for that job?
Imagine if Musk really really wanted to re-open an office in Brazil, who would he get to agree to be sent to jail? Who would have loved ones who would allow them to be sent to prison for Musk. Would Musk actually care if someone went to jail for him? Would he be any less of an asshole?
The operating assumption where any of this is could work is that the office, the staff and the operations all take place within the jurisdiction. But, none of this is true for twitter and Brazil, so it's a bit odd to support the notion of employing someone to be arrested and jailed for Musk's decisions to operate a company (as shittily as he deems fit) in a completely different country.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Kari'boka likes this.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •The local representative is not the captain. At best, it's the first officer's mate.
The operation of the ship is under Musk's control, and if there is someone to arrest, arrest him.
If someone can't represent the company locally because the company won't comply with the law, then they resign. If the company has shut down the office and there's no one in the country to represent the company, then there's no one in the country to represent the company.
In this case, it's Elon Musk.
I go back to some of my original questions to you:
Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •diegolakatos
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •Laffy
Unknown parent • • •Snowshadow
Unknown parent • • •UPDATE: ACCOUNT SUSPENDED!!
@taustw
I am looking at your account, newly opened yesterday with zero followers.
I see by all your replies on your profile page you are here only to troll accounts from Brazil, accounts fleeing the Twitter ban.
⚠️ I hope everyone REPORTS and blocks YOU as I have done.
👋 bye bye, this isn;'t twitter and we don't tolerate trouble makers.
Laffy
in reply to Snowshadow • • •Snowshadow
in reply to Laffy • • •No worries, it's been removed, sorry to bother you. Mods are fast today!!!
Laffy
in reply to Snowshadow • • •Snowshadow
in reply to Laffy • • •Ok, thank you.
Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •... and there isn't a social media company anywhere in the world who will give content moderation authority to an officer in every country that requires it. Some expectations need to be adjusted for reality.
I restate for clarity here: I have no problem with twitter being blocked. My problem is that we should never accept an innocent person (an accountant? a janitor?) being appointed the designated hostage when a country has a dispute with a company's HQ.
Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •If that person is not authorised within the company to fix those problems, what can the judge do?
If the answer is nothing, then what's the point of ordering that person to be appointed?
Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •... but that was my original question all those hours ago:
If the answer was always "no", we could have saved a great deal of energy.
Ligia Morris
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Ligia Morris
Unknown parent • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Ligia Morris • •My post you're replying to includes the following:
None of what you say above educates me in any way.
Ligia Morris
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Ligia Morris • •Dr. Brad Rosenheim
in reply to SJ • • •Dr. Brad Rosenheim
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •The representative does not need to be a programmer or moderator. They simply need to answer communications, communicate with the company's headquarters, etc.
Look at how social media companies operate in China. They censor, or they cease to exist there. The EU has stricter laws than the U.S.A, but Xitter is still there.
It is complicated to run a company like Xitter, even if you are a self-proclaimed genius like Musk.
Dr. Brad Rosenheim
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear @thisismissem That's Musk's problem now, not a problem with the laws of Brazil. It is true FAFO for Genius Boy.
(FAFO = Fuck around, find out, or joga por aí e descobrir para os brasileiros)
Dr. Brad Rosenheim
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️
in reply to Wilfried Klaebe • • •@wonka @jeffries @eibhear
Fines are paid by a company, not the director.
Jail sentences may be imposed on the director if the offence is a penal one. "The buck stops here" merely means "I'm the one who goes to prison". Resigning changes nothing: that person was ultimately responsible for decisions made by the company when the offence was committed.
Pretty sure even Musk would find it extremely hard to find someone prepared to go to jail simply to massage his throbbing ego.
Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •"None of this is true for twitter and Brazil."
Xitter *did* operate in Brazil, since it was made accessible to people in that country. This was a Xitter choice.
Firing all the moderators was also a choice, as was letting in known far-right agitators, neo-Nazis and proponents of open hate speech, while muting/expelling pro-democracy, pro-tolerance, pro-diversity voices.
If you can read a post in a country, the site that post is on operates in that country.
Kari'boka likes this.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️ • • •Not just that, but also selling and soliciting advertising within the country (i.e., doing business, not just being present on the internet)
Kari'boka likes this.
Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • • •Kari'boka likes this.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️ • •I think you're not reading what I'm saying. Let's punish twitter for failing to abide by the laws, and let's punish those who decide that twitter would not obey the law. This is 100% clear, and something I agree with.
What I disagree with is the idea that a member of staff of twitter should be personally held liable -- up to the point of imprisonment -- for Musk's decisions, knowing as we all do that Musk listens to no one when he has a bee in his bonnet.
cy
in reply to /home/gutocarvalho :bolha: • • •Light
in reply to cy • • •Protection without consent is infantilisation.
cy
in reply to Light • • •Light
in reply to cy • • •If you want to give up that right voluntarily, that's up to you. But don't involve me in it.
Dr. Brad Rosenheim
in reply to Light • • •@light @cy They can choose not to be protected by voting. Many will be upset by not having access to Xitter even for a few days. They will each individually have to think whether they're laws are too strict and act accordingly. Do they want control of their country, or do they want to open it up to social media troll farms?
There are many decisions your government makes without your direct consent. How clean your food is, how safe your drugs are, etc.
Light
in reply to Dr. Brad Rosenheim • • •cy
in reply to Light • • •Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •1. Since Musk is the ultimate decision-maker, it is likely he would be the once receiving the sentence, unless it could be should that the country rep was complicit (cue King's Evidence, or whatever the local version is).
2. Why should a country make a specific exception to its local agent laws just because Musk is an egotistical fascist cunt?
/home/gutocarvalho :bolha:
in reply to Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️ • • •I'm pretty sure that our court won't imprision a Brazilian representative, or force him or her to pay twitter fines.
They understand and known who is the real threat, they wont harm someone because of Musk personal war against Brazilian Gov.
But they will prolly close the company in Brazil for good.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear @anarchic_teapot
If you are the Managing Director of Twitter GmbH (Germany), and your parent company Twitter, LLC, doesn't allow you to follow german laws, and fines are levied against Twitter GmbH and neither Twitter GmbH nor Twitter LLC can or will pay those fines, then yes, there can be action taken against the Managing Director.
That is, companies offer some liability protection in cases of bankruptcy and such, but not in refusal to follow the law.
Kari'boka likes this.
Emelia 👸🏻
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • • •@eibhear @anarchic_teapot
Your issue isn't with Brazil, STF, or anything, it's with Musk throwing someone who agreed to work with him in good faith under the bus.
Musk knew refusing to comply would mean legal liability for that person, and chose not to comply.
Kari'boka likes this.
Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️
in reply to /home/gutocarvalho :bolha: • • •Angelo
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Anarchic Teapot 🌹⚧️ • •Ok.
I see your point, but I disagree, and I don't think I can say any more than that.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Emelia 👸🏻 • •2) Knowing that, did the court still want to imprison that local representative? and if so, to what purpose that would serve justice?