What scares me in Brazil's X ban is how overly broad the wording in the judge's decision is: "Internet providers, on behalf of their presidents (makes it personal legal liability), must add technological obstacles (literally anything) capable of making the use of X unfeasible." It's not about blocking IPs or domains. It doesn't prescribe any specifics. It names companies that must comply, but only as examples. And it seems to strip corporate protections and goes straight into personal liability. All in just a few sentences. Too broad. No one should have this much power.

Replies (25)

Default avatar
Darkstar 1 year ago
I completely agree with the analysis. Brazil's decision regarding the ban on X is concerning, not only for its content but also for how it was written. The text is extremely vague and broad, leaving room for dangerous interpretations. Imposing personal liability on company presidents, without clearly defining the means they must use to comply with the order, is a classic example of abuse of power. This type of authoritarian and undefined approach undermines the rule of law and puts individual freedoms at risk. No government or authority should have so much power to arbitrarily decide what can or cannot be done on the internet. This sets a dangerous precedent for future interventions and censorship, which is unacceptable in a democracy. View quoted note →
This is an advertisement for protocols like nostr. People should have the right to own digital property.
retired npub's avatar
retired npub 1 year ago
Out of the BRICS countries, only India and South Africa haven't banned social media It's only a matter of time before the BRICS countries make their own Twatter #grownostr #plebchain
Vitor Pamplona's avatar Vitor Pamplona
What scares me in Brazil's X ban is how overly broad the wording in the judge's decision is: "Internet providers, on behalf of their presidents (makes it personal legal liability), must add technological obstacles (literally anything) capable of making the use of X unfeasible." It's not about blocking IPs or domains. It doesn't prescribe any specifics. It names companies that must comply, but only as examples. And it seems to strip corporate protections and goes straight into personal liability. All in just a few sentences. Too broad. No one should have this much power.
View quoted note →
Honestly, over stepping is a bug mistake on their part. It is a dropping of the mask. Showing their true face. These events get people's attention in ways those of us that are awake cannot. Only fools make laws that show their impotence.
Boatos que o bloqueio pode cair ainda hoje, vejamos se acontece mesmo
conmartinico's avatar
conmartinico 1 year ago
Nostr had appear in the right time, the same as Bitcoin Two faces of the same coin!
O que me assusta na proibição de X no Brasil é o quão ampla é a redação da decisão do juiz: "Os provedores de internet, em nome de seus presidentes (torna isso responsabilidade legal pessoal), devem adicionar obstáculos tecnológicos (literalmente qualquer coisa) capazes de tornar o uso de X inviável." Não se trata de bloquear IPs ou domínios. Não prescreve nenhuma especificação. Nomeia empresas que devem obedecer, mas apenas como exemplos. E parece retirar proteções corporativas e ir direto para a responsabilidade pessoal. Tudo em apenas algumas frases. Amplo demais. Ninguém deveria ter tanto poder. View quoted note →
Definitely! We're in an electoral year and they want that only TV, which are basically financed by the state, to share "information". It's basically a "Truth Ministry"
Please read my latest post about anonymity on the internet: Bitte lesen Sie meinen neuesten Beitrag über Anonymität im Internet: Veuillez lire mon dernier article sur l'anonymat sur Internet: Lea mi última publicación sobre el anonimato en Internet: Isso é para meus amigos brasileiros quando você foi trancado. Leia meu último post sobre anonimato na internet: