Hacker News Reader

Comment by BadHumans | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I agree with Brazil wanting to compel platforms to ban accounts and I don't agree with fining people who try to access the service and if Elon is to be believed, I really don't agree with threatening Twitter's legal rep with prison. Elon is also a hypocrite having done the exact thing Brazil is asking for with India and Turkey in the past and he clearly has no problem inventing reasons to ban people who he doesn't like. ElonJet, accounts that campaign for Harris, journalist, etc. Everyone in this situation sucks.

View on HN

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.

The earlier order ordered Apple and Google to remove VPN apps.

Yes, 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.

The 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.

What 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.

Well, that's how being a legal representative of any company in the World works.

Negative, representatives do not control their clients - they are the middleman that can explain process and likely result, but they are not the clients.

I'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.

Is BlueSky required to have a legal rep?

Not 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.

No, 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.

Not at all. See my reply to the other comment.

Is there a reason to give Elon the benefit of the doubt for anything at this point?

Yes, it is called living in a civilized society.

Well no, if someone is a habitual liar or always wrong, then you're free to assume they are lying or wrong. The ordinary opinion of random people is not a court of law where innocence is presumed.

You believe Elon Musk is always wrong? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

I'm not talking about Elon. Just making a general statement that you do not always need to give someone the benefit of doubt.

Sure, I totally agree that you don't always have to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

In context though, it is very unclear that you weren't talking about Musk.

> Well no, if someone is a habitual liar or always wrong, then you're free to assume they are lying or wrong. The ordinary opinion of random people is not a court of law where innocence is presumed.

The GP comment you were replying to specifically mentions giving Elon the benefit of the doubt. Are you implying that you shouldn't give benefit of the doubt to a random person that you deem a habitual liar and therefore assume is always lying or wrong? Or are you implying that Elon is a habitual liar, should be assumed always lying/wrong, and not given the benefit of the doubt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com