273
X goes offline in Brazil after Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with local laws
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
273 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37592 readers
39 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.