Brazilian here. This a controversial topic, so take what I say as an opinion.
Although Musk 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
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
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.
No. Fascism is right wing. Corporate deregulation and laissez faire capitalism are not what fascists or conservatives allow, pretty big threat to their power.
Libertarians and ancaps are only anarchist in the most facile sense; they’re not actually anti-authority or anti hierarchy, they’re just anti authority-over-themselves. They have no issue mandating actions to others. Rules for thee but not for me/ rules that bind the outgroup only, is the hallmark of right-wing ideologies, and is ancaps and libertarians to a ‘t’.
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.
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.
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 won’t bother with the rest, but this is flat-out false. Unregulated capitalism is responsible for unethical practices such as buying out your competitors, price-fixing, waiting-out your competitors (because they can’t match your unrealistically low price), insider-trading, exploiting a captive audience, and only competing in “territories” (you know, like drug dealers).
I can’t speak globally, but all the worst monopolies engaged in at least one of these. The US is far from perfect, but they squashed several giant monopolies because of practices like this. Corporations without guardrails are unrestrained greed.
a monopoly patent was literally a government invention. an actual monopoly does require the government. what you are talking about is called a “natural monopoly” in the literature. that would be a situation where there’s only one seller for something like say water in a desert town. in that case you can have price gouging and such.
now, the important bit is the LEGAL ability to prevent competition. if there is a natural monopoly on water, and the seller decided to start charging obscene amounts for water, those extreme profits would normally induce other sellers to enter the market. except when they are legally prohibited, we can expect that a natural monopoly will not last if what we call “monopoly rents” are extracted.
so you see, a true monopoly requires legal force, eg the state.
They’re not talking about natural monopolies. A natural monopoly is when there’s some barrier to entry that prevents competitors from entering the market, like a need for prohibitively expensive infrastructure.
What OP is talking about are situations like Walmart opening a store in a new location, operating it at or near a loss to drive the local competition out of business, and then jacking up prices once no competitors remain. The government isn’t forcing them to do that.
I very much disagree but respect a desire to not get into a debate, so I’ll leave it there.
I really don’t know what that means
“Your freedom ends at my face” is a saying used often here to contend with right-wing group’s insistence on “freedom,” often the kind that involves harming others; e.g. free speech absolutism and the “freedom” to spout neo-Nazi rhetoric that advocates for the murder of minorities, or the “freedom” to not get vaccinated and thus worsen a pandemic. A more full version might be “Your freedom to throw a punch ends where my face begins.” The idea is that it is fair to restrict a freedom if it supports the freedom of others — you might not trust governments to determine where those lines lie, and that’s fair, but that’s a separate issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Brazilian here. This a controversial topic, so take what I say as an opinion.
Although Musk 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
A right-winger, then? Cool, keep us posted.
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
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.
Cali is correct.
No. Fascism is right wing. Corporate deregulation and laissez faire capitalism are not what fascists or conservatives allow, pretty big threat to their power.
There are more than 1 right wing ideologies.
And lumping in borderline anarchists with conservatives and fascists is stupid
Libertarians and ancaps are only anarchist in the most facile sense; they’re not actually anti-authority or anti hierarchy, they’re just anti authority-over-themselves. They have no issue mandating actions to others. Rules for thee but not for me/ rules that bind the outgroup only, is the hallmark of right-wing ideologies, and is ancaps and libertarians to a ‘t’.
Neither of those concepts are right wing.
All of it is capitalism, aka right-wing.
It’s all about individual freedom until you start asking libertarians about the rights of kids and contractual indentured servitude.
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.
I don’t think having a diversity in viewpoints on whether kids have rights is something to celebrate.
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.
I agree with that.
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
I really don’t know what that means
I won’t bother with the rest, but this is flat-out false. Unregulated capitalism is responsible for unethical practices such as buying out your competitors, price-fixing, waiting-out your competitors (because they can’t match your unrealistically low price), insider-trading, exploiting a captive audience, and only competing in “territories” (you know, like drug dealers).
I can’t speak globally, but all the worst monopolies engaged in at least one of these. The US is far from perfect, but they squashed several giant monopolies because of practices like this. Corporations without guardrails are unrestrained greed.
a monopoly patent was literally a government invention. an actual monopoly does require the government. what you are talking about is called a “natural monopoly” in the literature. that would be a situation where there’s only one seller for something like say water in a desert town. in that case you can have price gouging and such.
now, the important bit is the LEGAL ability to prevent competition. if there is a natural monopoly on water, and the seller decided to start charging obscene amounts for water, those extreme profits would normally induce other sellers to enter the market. except when they are legally prohibited, we can expect that a natural monopoly will not last if what we call “monopoly rents” are extracted.
so you see, a true monopoly requires legal force, eg the state.
They’re not talking about natural monopolies. A natural monopoly is when there’s some barrier to entry that prevents competitors from entering the market, like a need for prohibitively expensive infrastructure.
What OP is talking about are situations like Walmart opening a store in a new location, operating it at or near a loss to drive the local competition out of business, and then jacking up prices once no competitors remain. The government isn’t forcing them to do that.
I very much disagree but respect a desire to not get into a debate, so I’ll leave it there.
“Your freedom ends at my face” is a saying used often here to contend with right-wing group’s insistence on “freedom,” often the kind that involves harming others; e.g. free speech absolutism and the “freedom” to spout neo-Nazi rhetoric that advocates for the murder of minorities, or the “freedom” to not get vaccinated and thus worsen a pandemic. A more full version might be “Your freedom to throw a punch ends where my face begins.” The idea is that it is fair to restrict a freedom if it supports the freedom of others — you might not trust governments to determine where those lines lie, and that’s fair, but that’s a separate issue.
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.
Libertarianism isn’t right wing in the states either. It got lumped in there to make it easier to mock them.
Political ideology is independent of where you live. Educate yourself
I did. This is the conclusion.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
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.
https://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.
This is exactly what I said.
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.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-
To summarise:
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.
You say I don’t read… then proceed to explain the same that I already said? Ok.
I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.
I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.
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
Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.
You’re right on the fact you’re not right leaning. Libertarian are far right.
I agree there’s abuse, but there are laws:
Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.
Both in Portuguese.
I’ll look into it further tomorrow. If I find out that I’m wrong, I’ll edit my comment saying so.
Yeah but reality doesn’t matter here. Good luck
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
I bet you voted for bolsonaro
Twice!!
username checks out :D