Brazil Supreme Court Rules Digital Platforms Are Liable For Users' Posts (ft.com)
- Reference: 0178200532
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/06/27/0624226/brazil-supreme-court-rules-digital-platforms-are-liable-for-users-posts
- Source link: https://www.ft.com/content/4a5235c5-acd0-4e81-9d44-2362a25c8eb3
> Companies such as Facebook, TikTok and X will have to act immediately to remove material such as hate speech, incitement to violence or "anti-democratic acts," even without a prior judicial takedown order, as a result of the decision in Latin America's largest nation late on Thursday.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/4a5235c5-acd0-4e81-9d44-2362a25c8eb3
good (Score:5, Interesting)
now we'll see if it has the intended outcome without having to try it out for ourselves
R.I.P. Social media (Score:4, Insightful)
you will not be missed
Re: (Score:1)
No, the gov't there will probably implement their own social media to control thought, and exempt themselves from being sued.
It's what authoritarians do.
Re: R.I.P. Social media (Score:2)
No, what authoritarians do is crack down on scapegoats like immigrants, round them up and deport them illegally. Or forbid books.
Re: (Score:1)
Such actions are not mutually exclusive.
The Soviet press didn't write bad stuff either (Score:2)
Grandpa informs me they didn't even report on emergencies or health hazard.
There was a major mudslide in Kiev at some point in the 60s. Lots of casualties. People working asses and elbows to rescue and recover. Not a peep in the local media. Nothing bad happened.
Chernobyl? Nothing to see here. Grandpa knew about because he worked at a place that had radiation detectors. Warned my mom to take Little Baby RightwingNutjob out of town early.
Oh and of course in the absense of open communication, rumors traveled
Re: The Soviet press didn't write bad stuff either (Score:1)
He wasn't wrong. Watched something on DW a few months ago about Ukrainian "war refugees" being settled in Germany. Mainly women and children but a couple of fighting-age men too. They ain't going back unless they want to be duct-taped to a light pole for desserting.
WW2 was similar. Even if all you were doing was trying to survive a bad situation, someone out there will take issue with how you did it. Even if you didn't do anything and just were lucky enough to make it through until it blew over, the risk wa
This is why Brazil is a shithole (Score:2, Interesting)
They focus on this crap instead of REAL crimes, because they make the Mexican government look not corrupt by comparison. If they ever want international trade and to be taken seriously, they need to solve it. But all this thought crime bullshit does is keep them in power and that's all they want so they can keep getting bribe money.
Sounds fun (Score:2, Insightful)
The Supreme Court of the United States of America should do the same. And jailing sociopathic billionaires who break sh*t sounds like a worth-while hobby. We should all try it.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth Social will be exempt.
Act immediately (Score:2)
Block all ips from Brazil. That's really the easiest and cheapest solution.
...will have to act immediately to remove material (Score:2)
I guess they'll remove themselves instead.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a chance. They will just come up with unpleasant ways to comply.
On the other hand I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing but I'm not sure it's a good thing either.
I think the issue is that in Brazil they have some pretty extreme violence being coordinated and encouraged on social media sites.
Of course the potential for abuse here is enormous, you can basically shut down anyone you don't like with false reports.
It's one of those things where there are deeper underlining problems but an
Re: (Score:2)
So the trolls will just post and post and repost with different wordings and user names.
AI makes it easy.
Useless theater.
Re: (Score:2)
> So the trolls will just post and post and repost with different wordings and user names. AI makes it easy. Useless theater.
Spam used to post and re-post with different wordings and email addresses. Then we got much better at blocking and ignoring that nonsense altogether. Today, the overwhelming majority of email sent from the raw internet is blocked/filtered.
The Wild West era of social media is coming to an end. Probably for the best if it wishes to ultimately survive. The West didn't remain Wild for valid reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the parent.
They will have to shut down. There is no way to comply with the law, nor should they have to (but that's another topic).
The only way that this will work is if the government only uses the law when it desires to, not when actual violations occur. If they tried to prosecute every incident they would be overwhelmed. So, it's a good tool of repression, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Brazil can build their own social network and block all the others with a firewall rule, let them babysit their own social network
Re: (Score:2)
The article is paywalled but if the profits outweigh the consequences they'll stay.
Russia has some businesses practices that are illegal but reasonable so the fines are $30 a year. Some politician got his win but not really.
It's either cynical or a business license depending on how you look at it. In many US places being in businesses is illegal if you don't pay the government for the privilege of earning a living.
On the other hand EU fines US Big Tech hundreds of millions for stuff they don't like. Apple
Re: (Score:3)
If the cost to remove the material is less than profit, then they'll do it. (At least based on the bean counter spreadsheet claiming the costs and profits. Brazil has 211 million people, that's a lot of money.)
Re: (Score:2)
not when the average income is about $7000 USD.
Some are super rich which means the vast majority make less than that.
Re: (Score:1)
> I agree with the parent.
> They will have to shut down. There is no way to comply with the law, nor should they have to (but that's another topic).
> The only way that this will work is if the government only uses the law when it desires to, not when actual violations occur. If they tried to prosecute every incident they would be overwhelmed. So, it's a good tool of repression, I guess.
From the ruling: "remove content that promotes anti-democratic actions, terrorism, hate speech, child pornography, and other serious crimes". Brazil is known for corruption. I'm not worried about social media companies at this point - I'm worried about the average citizen being caught up in this nonsense. Oh, that's a nice small business you have - it would be a shame if that business were found to be posting illegal hate speech online...
See also the story of Archibald Buttle.
Re: (Score:1)
How hard would it be to pull all their servers OUT of the country...and just allow connections to continue to servers outside the country?
Sure, response times would drop some...but how much response time do you need for FB??
Re: (Score:2)
If they have no assets or staff in the country and no payments being made to or from the country it would be difficult to argue that they are subject to that countries laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook offers services, some free, some paid, to citizens of Brazil so yes, their activities can be legislated.
Re: (Score:2)
> If they tried to prosecute every incident they would be overwhelmed.
Sort of like speeding laws. But speeding laws do limit how fast most people drive and this will result in less of the content they are trying to limit. Facebook "pays" people with free service to provide the content they use to attract advertisers. I am not sure why there is anything wrong with regulating commercial sites' content regardless of who creates it.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no way to comply with the law.
Google does it for ads, and it makes them a lot of money.