Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, so what. It's their business what accounts are allowed under local law.



Brazil could attempt to ban the accounts somehow, they don't have jurisdiction to force Twitter to ban them. The whole play here is a game of chicken - "ban these accounts or we cut you off from the Brazilian user base"


Local law says censorship is unconstitutional. It goes out of its way to spell out that on top of censorship being unconstitutional, political censorship is especially unconstitutional. That means it's super mega ultra unconstitutional.

That's the whole point, you know. We think this supreme court judge is violating the constitution by doing things like ordering the censorship of "fake news". These were political accounts engaged in speech of a political nature. They cannot be censored.

What do you do when the guy who's supposed to interpret and apply the constitution starts blatantly violating it? I have no idea. People actually tried asking the brazilian military to intervene. This guy called that an antidemocratic act despite the fact not one soul voted for him. Called it a coup attempt. Then he put those people in a gulag.


You seem misinformed. Sources ?

They literally just approved a law against misinformation.


> Sources ?

PL 2630/2020, the proposed "fake news" law. Not approved, despite their unrelenting attempts at passing it with urgency. At least not yet. And certainly not before all this stuff began, which would be in 2019.

> They literally just approved a law against misinformation.

Huh? I searched for newly approved "fake news" laws but couldn't find any new information. Why don't you cite some?


https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o

Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges.

A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not.

B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not.

C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court

D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true.


There is no problem with requiring X to appoint local representatives. This has nothing to do with that.

Follow the chain of events.

The "fake news" inquisition started when some magazine ran a damning article on one of these judges.

In retaliation to that, they granted themselves extensive powers. They gave themselves the right to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish crimes against themselves.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

Then comes the 2022 election. These judges become openly partisan. They start censoring Bolsonaro supporters for "fake news". This is what I claim is unconstitutional.

Obviously, Bolsonaro was not reelected. These judges are very happy about that. They're so happy they go to public events and showboat about being the ones who personally defeated Bolsonaro.

Fast forward to today. The censorship continues. They keep ordering X to ban accounts. Which led to it pulling out of the country. Which led to it getting blocked due to not having a local legal representative. Which led to everything we are witnessing in real time right now.

There is no problem with requiring local legal representation. The problem is with the B point in your timeline. They shouldn't be "asking" (actually ordering) the removal of accounts for "misinformation" at all. That is political censorship and it is unconstitutional.

Therefore everything that happened after B, should not have happened at all.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: