Hacker News

85 readers

1 users here now

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules

0. Keep it legal

Keep it civil and SFW
Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

haxor@derp.foo

Rumble Turns Off Access in Brazil Because of Government's Censorship Demands (reclaimthenet.org)

submitted 11 months ago by haxor@derp.foo to c/hackernews@derp.foo

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

For further info, so other posters know what's going on:

Currently the Brazilian civil code has a gap that allows you to promote Nazism as long as you don't use the swastika, nor "practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice based on race, [skin] colour, ethnicity, religion or national [SIC] origin"; refer to law 7716/1989 of the Civil Code article 20*.

And then there's "that fucking guy" who says that there should be a Nazi party in Brazil; he's called Bruno Auib, also known as Monark, some random podcaster. He did not violate the law in letter, but clearly did it in spirit. And later on the same guy went saying "the elections were rigged!" and something like this, so the Brazilian judiciary (Alexandre de Moraes) used the opportunity to demand social media platforms to get rid of his accounts, under the allegation of fake news*.

And now Rumble is all over the place trying to justify the non-removal of that guy. The platform is Canadian and the decision is from the Brazilian judiciary, and yet they're babbling about "muh Amurrcan values" and that "gavurrnmenrs urr bullying uz".

[I like the outcome of the judiciary decision. The way that it was done was a bit shitty, but better than nothing.]

*the links are in Portuguese but I can translate relevant excerpts if anyone so desires.

[–] Dio@lemy.lol 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

TEALDEER: It wasn't against the law, it was just, "Wrong think"

If even that. I don't know the bloke or what he says, but nowadays, it doesn't take much imagination for what is considered, 'scary and offencive' I also do not think an entirely different country can demand another one to obey its laws.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

230 WORDS IS TOO LONG FOR AN ILLITERATE LIKE ME: It wasn’t against the law, it was just, “Wrong think”

I'm not surprised that you're a failure to distinguish between "this is not against the law" and "this abuses a loophole of the law".

but nowadays, it doesn’t take much ASSOOOMPTION for what is considered, ‘scary and offencive' [SIC - offensive]

What he said is mentioned in the very comment that you're replying to.

I also do not think

Wow, this is news for... nobody.

I also do not think an entirely different country can demand another one to obey its laws.

Brazil is not demanding Canada to obey Brazilian laws. Brazil is demanding Rumble to obey Brazilian laws if conducting businesses in Brazil, or cease operations in Brazil. Rumble did the later, as per news in the OP (that you likely didn't read either).

The internet and online services make this specially messy but it's the basic gist of it.

[NB: I don't expect the above to be able to parse a single sentence, I'm answering his shitpost for the sake of other users.]