X Circumvents Court-Ordered Block In Brazil (theguardian.com) 68
Late last month, Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered X to suspend operations in Brazil after a months-long dispute with X owner Elon Musk. The conflict centered on Musk's refusal to appoint a legal representative in the country and his refusal to take down disinformation and far-right accounts. However, on Wednesday, X bypassed the court-ordered block by utilizing third-party cloud services, allowing many Brazilian users to access the platform without the need for a virtual private network (VPN). From a report: The number of Brazilians accessing X is unknown, according to [Abrint, the Brazilian Association of Internet and Telecommunications Providers]. "I believe the change was probably intentional. Why would X use a third-party service that ends up being slower than its own?" said Basilio Perez, a board member at Abrint.
Any revised order from Brazil's national telecommunications agency Anatel, which is responsible for implementing the court ruling, will need to be more specific, because blocking cloud access is complex and may jeopardize government agencies and financial services providers, Perez said.
Anatel has identified the problem and is working to first notify content delivery network providers, followed by telecom companies to block access again to X in Brazil, according to a person familiar with the situation. The same person said it is not clear how long it will take for the providers to comply with the order.
Any revised order from Brazil's national telecommunications agency Anatel, which is responsible for implementing the court ruling, will need to be more specific, because blocking cloud access is complex and may jeopardize government agencies and financial services providers, Perez said.
Anatel has identified the problem and is working to first notify content delivery network providers, followed by telecom companies to block access again to X in Brazil, according to a person familiar with the situation. The same person said it is not clear how long it will take for the providers to comply with the order.
A recipe for teaching network censorship. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A recipe for teaching network censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
By confronting them that way, you'll only teach them the witchcraft of network traffic mgmt to censor more of everything...
But if identifying dictatorship as damage and routing around it is the only way, go for it. This was one of the original stated advantages of the Internet itself.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
> growing user base and healthy engagement metrics of X
[Citation needed]
And, just by the by, before you get started, people who have been demonstrated to lie through their teeth time and time again are not [elonmusk.today] considered to be reliable sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Found the MAGA
Twitter has lost an estimated 85% of value since Leon sabotaged it.
Just take Musk into custody and extradite him. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just take Musk into custody and extradite him.
US law would not allow for extradition, since it would not be a crime if done in the US.
We also have the SPEECH Act which says that US courts should refuse to recognize foreign judgements, Unless that foreign court provides the same rights as the 1st Amendment in the US and similar due process rights as the US constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
US law would not allow for extradition, since it would not be a crime if done in the US.
It's not illegal to disobey and break a judge's direct written order/judgement? Your head must be so far up Elon's ass.
Does contempt of court ring a bell? Or did Elon tell you that laws don't apply to him?
Misleading framing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Misleading framing (Score:5, Informative)
It's notable the way these countries operate: They demand local representatives for one reason and one reason only: Somebody whose neck is close enough to wring, or head close enough to remove, even if it's one of their own citizens, so they have a way to enforce censorship "or the little bunny gets it". China, Russia, and France have made similar demands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> he does actually stand up for free speech.
Freedom of speech is an American thing and it only relates to the government preventing you from speaking.
It is not freedom of consequence and it not freedom to post whatever you like online.
You still have to follow the laws of the country you do business in. Elon was not following the laws in Brazil, and when he was told to he doubled down.
Twitter is for the most part dead. Over 80% of it is value gone, nearly all advertisers gone. The only freedom of speech i
Re: Misleading framing (Score:5, Insightful)
>Freedom of speech is an American thing
Blatant authoritarian lie. Almost every liberal democracy has their variant of it written in their basic law/constitution/comparable legislative system. It's in fact one of the defining features of being a LIBERAL democracy. As opposed to illiberal democracies, such as for example DPRK.
>It is not freedom of consequence
It is in fact freedom of consequence from government. The entire point of freedom of speech is that government cannot prosecute you for your speech critical of government or any of its policies. If that isn't present, speech isn't free but either silenced or compelled depending on the form that prosecution takes. CCP for example practices mainly compelled speech "you must say the correct things or else". Whereas the likes of current Brazil are satisfied with merely stifling speech, "if you say these things/keep those things available to hear or read, we will punish you".
>Twitter is for the most part dead.
This is the gnostic cult "manifesting" in action. You believe that if you repeat something enough times, it will manifest itself into reality. The chant has been ongoing for several years now. Are you people hoarse yet?
>There are already alternatives out there and Elon helped Bluesky just recently get to over 10 million users.
Remind me, why did you stop pushing Mastodon as a Twitter replacement?
Re: (Score:2)
>Freedom of speech is an American thing
Blatant authoritarian lie. It's in fact one of the defining features of being a LIBERAL democracy.
Exactly. There is absolutely no way to make representation work if only one side gets to speak. It immediately turns into tyranny of the majority. The downside of having bad people say wrong things is BY FAR lesser evil.
Re: (Score:2)
There is. It's called illiberal democracy. Everyone who has correct opinions gets represented, and everyone who has wrong opinions gets persecuted.
It often isn't a tyranny of majority either, but a tyranny of minority. Because it only takes about 10% or population that are well organized and trained to work together toward a common goal to take over any large and otherwise non-political organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no transition. Illiberal democracies are overwhelmingly totalitarian in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
> Blatant authoritarian lie.
You know if you want to be taken seriously you should avoid attacking the people responding to you. You attack the argument, not the person.
> Almost every liberal democracy has their variant of it written in their basic law
What does that mean exactly? To me it appears you are confusing US Freedom of Speech with "Freedom of expression" that many other countries have.
Hate speech is nearly always illegal with freedom of expression. Not so with freedom of speech.
> This is th
Re: (Score:2)
>You know if you want to be taken seriously you should avoid attacking the people responding to you. You attack the argument, not the person.
I called your argument a lie, because it is factually and observably a lie. The fact that you see your views as an inherent part of your personality and therefore something that should not be challenged because that would be a personal attack is another data point on your political beliefs and why you believe the utterly absurd things that you do.
>you are confusi
Not Just an "American Thing" (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is an American thing and it only relates to the government preventing you from speaking.
No it is not just an "American thing" and only in the American case is it implemented as a restriction on government. There are many examples of freedom of speech or expression being enshrined in countries' constitutions e.g. Canada and much of Europe. The upside is that in many cases it is written as a right and so does not just apply to governments but to everyone e.g. companies can't fire you for expressing a political opinion unlike in the US.
The downside with the positive, right-based approach is t
Re: Misleading framing (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh bullshit. Stop with the gaslighting. On several different occasions he has blocked journalists [cnn.com] on Twitter. He ordered the NPR story about the Arlington Cemetery fiasco be blocked [yahoo.com]. He ordered the removal of 5,000 posts [apnews.com] about a transgender support rally in Washington, D.C. He initially blocked, then rescinded [nbcnews.com], his edict to block any post about any other social media platform as Twitter plummets into the gutter.
I could go on, but the evidence is overwhelming that Leon is not for free speech. He is only for speech he agrees with or that pushes the right-wing agenda.
He is also fighting the terrifying trend to a global order of unaccountable decision makers.
Explain who he is accountable to if he owns Twitter. There is no board to keep tabs on him. He makes an edict and it's done or you're fired. Explain how that is accountability.
We need to stand up for national sovereignty. No you don't get to tell an American company what to do if you are in the Brazille or the EU or where ever.
Then guess what, we don't get to tell companies from Brazil or EU or wherever what they can do in this country. National sovereignty and all that.
The public needs to realize that Internationalism is bad for them generally speaking.
Can we presume you buy no product unless it's made in America, such as the computer you're typing out this nonsense. Without internationalism nothing would get done. No one country has the resources to keep itself running or the ability to absorb what it produces. Products must go to other countries for sale and products must come in for purchase. If you want to be like North Korea, have it.
Re: (Score:3)
They demand local representatives for one reason and one reason only: Somebody whose neck is close enough to wring, or head close enough to remove, even if it's one of their own citizens, so they have a way to enforce censorship "or the little bunny gets it".
You got it in one. You can't operate a company anywhere in the world without someone who is responsible and stops the company from breaking the local laws.
The "enforcing censorship" is of course nonsense. All that Twitter has to do is stop criminals who want to overthrow the government (like Donald Trump, only worse) from organising through Twitter. So it's not "enforcing censorship", it is "enforcing their democratic laws".
Good thing is that even though Twitter has no representative, and no money, th
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing is that even though Twitter has no representative, and no money, they can still get massive fines, and SpaceX is legally responsible for paying Twitter's fines.
This is where things get... complicated.
Twitter can absolutely be fined in absentia for violating Brazilian law. But the holding SpaceX responsible for paying the fines thing is questionable, legally.
What Brazil has done is a form of what we in the USA would call piercing the corporate veil. Essentially, since Elon musk owns Twitter, he is responsible for Twitter's violations, and since he also owns SpaceX they take the money from the SpaceX account -because they can. It is like the bank taking money fro
I haven't dug into it (Score:1, Flamebait)
I know that both Facebook and Twitter have been involved in multiple genocides and tons of race riots outside of America. There are several countries that are in much worse shape than we are in terms of race relations. Add to that the Russians going around causing trouble anywhere they can a
Re: I haven't dug into it (Score:2)
Slashdot is a private community. Itâ(TM)s not technically possible for that community to âoecensorâ content. Only the government can censor things. Slashdot, Twitter, facebook, etc are just choosing what kind of content they want on their platform. Kinda like a magazine editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot is a private community. Itâ(TM)s not technically possible for that community to âoecensorâ content. Only the government can censor things. Slashdot, Twitter, facebook, etc are just choosing what kind of content they want on their platform. Kinda like a magazine editor.
Wow, this ignorant. Private organizations can absolutely censor things.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no censorship at all on slashdot besides some mild word filtering.
There is little censorship. I have personally seen comments go away on this site before. Should they have? IME yes in the specific cases, but that doesn't make it "no censorship".
There is also a thumb on the wheel of moderation. It seems the moderation abusers can get no end of modpoints, but users who moderate in good faith stop getting them.
Re: (Score:1)
He isn't even taking down the left wing misinformation fueling assassination attempts on Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
But I haven't heard that either. What I have generally heard is that Brazil is upset that Elon is refusing to take down actual misinformation like anti-vaccine misinformation or the kind of stuff that inflames riots.
'Brazil' is not upset, and has two million X users (according to that known right-wing source, AP News). One judge is upset because X refuses to ban the accounts of people favored by the previous administration and not by the current one. X has refused, as is its right because it's based outside the judge's jurisdiction. The judge has ordered X blocked in Brazil, which is his right, and the users are getting around the block with VPNs, as is their right.
The just response to free speech you don't like is mor
Re: (Score:3)
One judge is upset because X refuses to ban the accounts of people favored by the previous administration and not by the current one. X has refused, as is its right because it's based outside the judge's jurisdiction. The judge has ordered X blocked in Brazil, which is his right, and the users are getting around the block with VPNs, as is their right.
It is not one judge. Five out of 11 judges have been asked to confirm the judgment and they have. The people whose accounts were banned were fascists hell-bent on overthrowing the democratically elected government. Users trying around the Twitter ban using VPN can be asked to pay a fine of around $6,000. It is _not_ their right to get around this block as long as they are in Brazil.
Re: (Score:2)
Brazil has no law banning VPN usage. The judge threw a tantrum after it was pointed out to him that VPNs, which have the same ordinary commercial uses there as anywhere else, and pulled a "law" out of his own butt so he could impose mammoth fines that will never be paid for use of a technology that is by now undetectable. Good luck with that.
Re:Misleading framing (Score:4, Insightful)
He complied with requests to ban opposition accounts on behalf of the Turkish government. It really depends how far right the person asking it. His issue with Brazil is that it's not a dictator demanding it.
Re: (Score:2)
He complied with requests to ban opposition accounts on behalf of the Turkish government. It really depends how far right the person asking it. His issue with Brazil is that it's not a dictator demanding it.
It is one possible and very uncharitable interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk refused to take down accounts of elected officials based on opposite party's demands for censorship.
Yes he did [arstechnica.com]. And he had no problem doing it. He even gave excuses for why he did it.
The "free speech" guy is a liar through and through. He very blatantly violates free speech [imgur.com] on a whim. You won't, but others might, watch the show next month [pbs.org] where Twitter insiders describe his erratic behavior and final capitulation to endorsing hate speech and right-wing ideology while suppressing free speech.
Disinformation or information De Mora didn't like? (Score:2, Informative)
This is about censoring political opponents.
https://www.wsj.com/world/amer... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is about censoring political opponents.
https://www.wsj.com/world/amer... [wsj.com]
Just like he did in Turkey [arstechnica.com]. He even made excuses for why he allowed censoring of political opponents.
Re:This good news (Score:4, Informative)
We have to do whatever it takes to defeat censorship. Let's not submit to tyrants.
Elmo already capitulated to a tyrant [arstechnica.com] when he censored political opponents. Go whine to him and hear his lies about why he did it.
That's funny Elon was all in on censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
What Brazil's was asking him to do was control blatant misinformation like anti-vax bullshit or stuff that the Russians were pushing to destabilize the country and trigger of race riots and stuff like that.
If all Brazil wanted was to censor political opponents we already learned that Elon is happy to do that for Turkey so they sure as shit would have done it for Brazil.
Re: That's funny Elon was all in on censorship (Score:5, Informative)
Turkish elections may be free but they have not been fair for a while.
Erdogan regularly uses his position in government to further his election campaigns (go see how much airtime national TV gave his side, AKP, to campaign vs. how much the opposition got). Erdogan also regularly used the courts to persecute the opposition; not unlike Trump seems to want to do if he comes to power again. E.g. look at how the CHP has been hounded by the courts.
This is the kind of thing Orban, PiS and Putin do/did (to varying extents). It is far from a fair election when one side has *and uses* the resources of government at their disposal to campaign against & persecute the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
It is far from a fair election when one side has *and uses* the resources of government at their disposal to campaign against & persecute the competition.
Exactly. In the US we have the Hatch Act, which explicitly bars government employees from using government resources to campaign. This gets a little tricky at the level of the president, so POTUS and VPOTUS are exempted from it... but it still applies to their staff, and most administrations are pretty careful to separate the governance and campaign work of presidential staff, taking care that all campaign-related work is off the clock and does not use government facilities or resources.
There has been on
Re: (Score:2)
An order to which Twitter has absolutely no obligation to follow.
So what you're saying is companies don't have to follow the laws of the countries they do business in. That they're above the law. Funny how that isn't the case [apnews.com]. Not only Starlink, but Twitter had routinely complied [techcrunch.com] with local laws to block certain content.
But companies and organizations outside Brazil's control don't have to play along.
If you're doing business in a country you're under that country's control and have to follow their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So what you're saying is companies don't have to follow the laws of the countries they do business in."
Twitter pulled out of Brazil (closed office, have no Brazilian employees, no contracts with Brazilian companies) so they are not doing business there.
>"Funny, Twitter had no problem censoring political opponents in"
That is a change of topic. This is about Brazil. But as a matter of record, I am not in favor of any country's government censoring content.
>"your lies won't change it"
I didn't lie
Re: (Score:2)
That is up to Brazil to accomplish, but it has limits. Once Twitter pulled out, Brazil's reach was ended. Now all they can do is try to block/filter the Internet and its own citizens
But you know that's not true. Twitter exists, it can be fined, Brazil has no way to force Twitter itself to pay the fines, but we know that Space X is responsible for paying Twitter's fines. And they do business in Brazil, they have property in Brazil that can all be taken away.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Apple caved to Chinese censorship for a reason - you don't get a choice if you're perceived as "doing business" in that country.
If you have a court order, you have to follow it. If you're banned from providing content in a country by a court in that country, you better make sure you're not offering content to that country.
Because if not, any and all assets that they can link to your company can be seized and you better not ever set foot in that country ever again.
Sorry, but your reading of internation
For everybody saying this is about censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The only possible conclusion is this is about actual misinformation, as in stuff like anti-vax bullshit that gets people killed and stuff like the Russian bullshit that gets posted by their botnets like what we found out about with Tim Pool. In less less stable countries and countries with rougher race relations that can trigger riots and get people killed.
But it was never about censorship with Elon. If it was he wouldn't have censored when Turkey asked him to.
He's changed policy (Score:2)
without changing his values. Someone else is claiming that that's legitimate, isn't she?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a tired argument. Because X / Twitter under Musk didn't resist censorship demands in Turkey, it shouldn't also in Brazil? I don't really know all the details in either case, but I imagine there are different circumstances between them that might cause different reactions. Shouldn't we be happy that someone is standing against government censorship at all?
Oh, then you go on to refer to bad things that "can trigger riots and get people killed." Which leads me to think that you are actually PRO cen
I just told you how the circumstances differ (Score:3)
Elon has shown that he's open for business for dictators no matter what. That's the one thing he's consistent about. If you're an authoritarian dictator Elon is your friend.
and it's still better than Wayland! (Score:2)
What the USA does (Score:2)
Just do what the USA does: Kindly 'insist' the victim's ^H^H^H^H suspect's digital life be removed from the server.
Still illegal to access (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The fine costs R$ 50000 or something like US$ 9226.
Re: (Score:2)
The fine costs R$ 50000 or something like US$ 9226.
Oops. That's even more than I remembered. Most US citizens would think twice about doing something that could get them a US$ 9,200 fine, and then not do it. And Brazilians have on average less money. Explain to your wife why she can't go on a holiday for the next three years because you admire Elon Musk and just had to read Twitter.