Brazil's block on X comes into effect after judge's order. : technology

[+] downpunxx@fedia.io 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] zante@lemmy.wtf 18 points 2 months ago

They don’t need to chase down Raul tweeting his cat pics.

They only to pull the plug on advertisers, maybe the top 100 users .

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago

the fine is unenforceable both from practical and legal perspective, and probably only to scare people

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Order was amended, that's not longer the case. If you copy+paste an order saying that, say, Chiquita can't do business in Brazil any more you'd also attach such conditions, that Brazilian companies are forbidden from circumventing the ban by making business with Chiquita outside of Brazil. So it's more of a "oh that part doesn't make sense in this case" situation, not "let me come up with something extraordinary to make things worse".

Blocking things without outlawing VPN access is quite easy: Tell ISPs to take twitter off their DNS servers, with infrastructure the size of twitter you can also blackhole their whole IP range so they're unreachable even if you use a non-brazilian DNS server.

Blocking VPNs? Well you could tell VPNs that they're ISPs and also need to block twitter for their Brazilian customers. That'd actually make sense. Wouldn't affect the likes of tor at all.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

with infrastructure the size of twitter you can also blackhole their whole IP range

Just one note, services the size of Twitter typically use cloud infrastructure so if you block that indiscriminately you risk blocking a lot of unrelated stuff.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Their load balancers are at least bound to have dedicated addresses, maybe IP range was a bit overzealous.

In any case it's not going to be an issue of blocking port 80 on one IP and finding out that it serves five hundred semi-unrelated domains. Unrelated short of all using the same wordpress or whatnot hoster, that is.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

short of all using the same wordpress or whatnot hoster, that is.

That's the thing, that's common practice. It's basically a given nowadays for shared web hosting to use one IP for a few dozen websites, or for a service to leverage a load/geo-balancer with 20 IPs into a CDN serving static assets for thousands of domains.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

This is related to senators breaking the laws and messing with elections. It's not about fines for the general population, it's about finding and punishing big offenders.

[–] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 months ago

Good. I'm happy to see that elon's behavior is finally not being tolerated. Everyone should treat him like the spoiled little brat he is.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The judge also demanded Google, Apple and internet providers "introduce technological obstacles capable of preventing the use of the X application" and access to the website — although he later walked back that order.

I'm so fucking confused by the way this is worded. Like, the internet providers I would expect, for like a DNS block. Google and Apple can at least argue some technical hokum about how they can't do anything about people who already have the app in court, although that's likely not true.

But if he walked back the entire order, does that include the ISP block, or was it just the part for Google and Apple? If it includes the ISP block... how is the site blocked at all?

[–] stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

Google and Apple were notified in order to block access to X/Twitter's app in Brazil on their app stores.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah I can see it being pretty aggressive. It's like being punished for something a neighbor did. It would not make them feel good and even push them to give the double middle fingers akimbo to Brazil.

[–] blibla@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 months ago

so jealous i might move there

[+] 0x0@programming.dev -17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Countries in the Middle East block social media - bad.

Brazil blocks X - good.

Talk about double standards... it's censorship either way and it's not good.

[–] Enoril@jlai.lu 5 points 2 months ago

X is no more a social media... It’s a rogue social media not following the rules of the country it operate in.

You talks about double standards... Try first to not mixing totally not related root cause. Censoring vs Legals.

X could have been able to avoid that if the company had proper leadership in place.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

X decided to close its offices in order to not have a legal representative to answer for certain inquiries. That happened after some people were found breaking the law by doxing and illegal elections advertising, judges asking X to take that down, and X refusing. This is going back and forth for 2 years, so it's fair to say they won't comply.

[+] Apollo2323@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I hate Elon Musk but this is not good. Countries should not ban apps.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like Brazil has a law where you need to have a designated point of contact in-country, notified Musk of that, and he refused.

I guess Russia and Saudi Arabia care less about manipulating elections and stoking violence in Brazil than in other countries. Gotta focus.

[–] RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

He did even more than refuse. He is making elementary school level memes of the judge and mocking him. Hes such a manchild 😑

[–] zante@lemmy.wtf 40 points 2 months ago

Apps should not break the law.

[–] RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago

I get what you mean but you have to remember that that would mean corporations can do as they please.

No matter how much freedom and freedom of speech we have. There HAS to me a line. Like letting hate speech spread and neo nazis make it their home is one of those lines.

The judge asked twitter to have a legal representative IN brazil that can speak for the company on issues the government has with twitter. Elon musk told them to fuck off. So they now tell him to fuck off then. And now musk is crying and triggered.

Random and pretty extreme maybe, but its a clear example. Imagine someone standing infront of the house of a person of color and just shouting the n word over and over. Should he be arrested for hate speech? Or would that be an attack on freedom of speech?

Elon does not want freedom of speech. He wants freedom of consequences.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Perhaps if an app wants to do business in a country it should send an ambassador there to have a full time presence. Seems a reasonable compromise to me.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots