throwadobe

they definitely have the capability to do it.

You'd think so, but I guess they don't.

I mean, it's not like I trashed it or compared it to Mozart—I even made sure to include "interesting, stimulating, or tonally remarkable" in an attempt to preempt that latter pushback.

But even if I did, why can't I? It's fine to call some music shit. Just like you can call my opinion shit.

Policing dissenting opinions and saying everything is equally worthy of praise are two sides of the same coin sliding in the vending machine that sells us the sad state of affairs we live in today.

I'm not, I promise

I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?

Top article on G1: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/09/01/primeira-tu...

Translated to English via ChatGPT for you: https://pastebin.com/raw/1KNU6Q3F

These aren't "secret censorship orders". They are a matter of public record.

Also they are perfectly legal. Brazil has a modern "Internet Law" which in its Section III, Article 19 states:

"Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the provider of internet applications can only be subject to civil liability for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after an specific court order, it does not take any steps to, within the framework of their service and within the time stated in the order, make unavailable the content that was identified as being unlawful, unless otherwise provided by law."

https://www.cgi.br/pagina/marco-civil-law-of-the-internet-in...

Because doctors never misdiagnose or prescribe wrong medications...

I'd rather make my own choices, thank you very much.

Looks like this uses DOT? Click on "Editor" at the top

I never said they were, but the judge isn't wrong for deciding on legality rather than morality.

What's happening in Pakistan has no bearing on what's happening in Brazil. Just because "twitter is banned" in both countries doesn't mean it was banned for the same reasons or that the ban applies in the same way.

Please don't buy into the lazy narrative that this is a "maverick judge". That's an incorrect take that is fueled by political propaganda.

Irrelevant. Disagreeing on moral terms is not the same as deciding it has not followed the law and must face repercussions, which is what was decided here.

You can "be from Brazil" and still not understand the matter. Legal decisions are not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". They are a matter of law and facts.

How exactly was the judge's decision here not in accordance with the law?

I'm not "a part of the government base" and I happen to think this decision was lawful. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is doing so for political reasons. It would be too shallow to do so.

Not for legal purposes, it isn't. Unless you're arguing the morality of the Brazilian Constitution and the limits it imposes on freedom of speech in some scenarios, such as outlawing racism.

The judge doesn't care about the morality of his decision. He shouldn't care. He is there to decide what's lawful and unlawful based on the facts and on the law.

Factually incorrect. Plenty of free and open information in other networks in Brazil and through its free press.

Manager mode assumes that workers clock in and do what they can to drive the company forward. But there is no altruism among workers. Their decisions are for themselves first and for the company second.

It takes effort, requires goodwill, has damaging implications to internal politics and ultimately is not the best way to maximize tenure at C-level roles.

Executives are solving for their job, not for the company's success.

Are senators or pastors above the law?

Go read the decision: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124...

More generally, one doesn't get to say "No, judge, I won't comply with your decision" without repercussions.

It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.

I've replied elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41414019

Up to the extent it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, according to the Brazilian constitution, including the right not to be discriminated against.

What cruelty is this you speak of?

"secret censorship campaign" [citation needed]

making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech

Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.

Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.

Take it with a massive grain of salt for it is biased and poorly informed.

[flagged]

No, thanks.

That's how I do many kinds of percentages... like 72% is 50% and then 10% twice and then a couple of 1%s

Only for free as in freedom, not as in beer.

What "user rights"? Free software is a gift, not a right.

Why are you comparing SoCs to dedicated GPUs?

That guy needed a better lawyer. He could just have said "I don't remember. Can't say for sure" repeatedly