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
I would not put it like that, I’m not that arrogant. Lemmy is, in its majority, left leaning, so of course people will disagree with me, but that’s not to say “reality doesn’t matter”.
I’m really surprised that my post was not down voted to nothingness
Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.
Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.
To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.
The GDPR is a regulation (that’s what the R stands for), not a directive.
Directives must be transposed into national law by the member states, while regulations apply directly
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”, which member states then are bound to transpose into their national Civil Law systems. Judges can interprete that law in different ways, none of which creates a precedent. Only a country’s Supreme Court decision creates a precedent for that country, but even then it can be recurred up to the EU Tribunal, which has the last saying.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.
Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
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.
who effectively want to tear down as much government as possible, […]. It’s the ideology of an extraordinarily unregulated market – a true “free market”
I agree with that.
which is a monopolistic and wildly unethical disaster waiting to happen.
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
who view “your freedom ends at my face” as an insult
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.
I really don’t know what that means
“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.
but almost no two libertarians will agree about those things. if you think there is only one “blessed” or accepted viewpoint on those topics, you’ve been duped.
for example on the rights of kids. there will be somebody who will argue they fully own themselves and parents are never allowed to hit children or otherwise harm them. then there will be some idiot who argues that because babies are helpless and the parents made it, that the parents “own” the child until some point and can do what they want with it. other libertarians will have even more differing viewpoints.
Yeah, that can be different in other places.
From a brazilian perspective, there is no “left” on US mainstream politics. There is only fascist-right, conservative right and center-right.
Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology though, it’s pro corporate deregulation and lasseiz-faire capitalism. If you’re pro individual freedom, but opposed to right-wing ideas then the closest thing you can be is an Anarchist.
No. Fascism is right wing. Corporate deregulation and laissez faire capitalism are not what fascists or conservatives allow, pretty big threat to their power.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, that’s the government reaching waaaay beyond what it should without any real laws to back it up, on the other hand, fuck Musk and if this is what it takes to keep gullible people off nazifascist misinformation and propaganda then 🤷♂️.
The law doesn’t function the same everywhere. When you start/run an international business, it is necessary to understand this. When you don’t, things like this happen.
Ok, but there isn’t anything in the Brazilian body of law that says social media needs to have legal representation in the country to be functional, otherwise TikTok, Reddit and even Lemmy would’ve been blocked long ago, that’s the argument being made. That said, nothing like this has ever happened before, so maybe this could serve as a precedent for a new series of legislations.
There is, the “Marco Civil da Internet” states that a business that works in Brazil needs to respect Brazil’s law, and non compliance may trigger block in it’s service by ruling.
The representation don’t need to be on the country, the problem with Twitter is that they closed its offices here trying to avoid compliance in the first place.
Elon is trying to enforce his views over Brazil’s law. To force a crisis IMHO.
Based on some opinion articles, there’s something to add:
Xitter is bleeding money, fast. Closing Brazil’s office may be just a business move to limit costs.
Doing it this way may be a strategy to limit the damage of admitting that the business health is in bad shape. With the added benefits of attack Brazil’s institutions and causing chaos that could benefit the far-right here.
Elon is trying to enforce his views over Brazil’s law. To force a crisis IMHO.
He’s trying to see how far he can push his bullshit.
There is, the “Marco Civil da Internet” states that a business that works in Brazil needs to respect Brazil’s law, and non compliance may trigger block in it’s service by ruling.
That’s the thing though, to my knowledge Twitter didn’t break any laws, they ignored an order to take down accounts from their website. You could make the argument that in ignoring that order they were going against the law, but that’s about it. And honestly, that’s not the first time that has happened, this time they just decided to block Twitter because Musk was being a little shit about it, again maybe this will serve as a precedent in the future.
Sure, but there are those who say Moraes is overstepping with his demands. Quite frankly I don’t know what to say, all I know is that any loss for Musk is a win for me.
Oh yeah, not the person you replied to directly, but it’s insanely obvious to me that this is YET ANOTHER PR stunt to make Elon look like he’s being targeted. ANY other international social media would have tried to resolve this quietly, the public probably wouldn’t even know.
They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
I actually think the poor branding is part of why Mastodon is hard to spread. Can you picture anyone seriously saying they “tooted” something? Because I can’t.
Not the same. Twitter and tweets were uniquely brilliant in a way that “toot” will never be. Farts are unpleasant. Bird sounds are very pleasant. Also, Every hear the phrase “a little bird told me”? Or notice how in very old disney movies (which are based on old German fairytales), that the birds talk (tweet) to the heroines as benevolent messengers? Twitter was honestly the perfect name for the company. Mastodon is a terrible name, but better than X
I can relate to that, but fart sounds are also seen as childish and immature by lots of people so the site will never be a serious Twitter alternative unless they pick a bird name
Mastodon is also just a terrible name for a Twitter alternative where nearly everyone thinks of the format as being tweets (a sound a bird makes). If they had to pick a animal name, then they should have picked a two syllable bird name like Magpie, Pigeon, Bluejay, Robin, Raven, or even a 3 syllable bird like StellarJay, Cockatoo, etc.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
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.
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
Yeah but reality doesn’t matter here. Good luck
I would not put it like that, I’m not that arrogant. Lemmy is, in its majority, left leaning, so of course people will disagree with me, but that’s not to say “reality doesn’t matter”.
I’m really surprised that my post was not down voted to nothingness
Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.
Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.
To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.
The GDPR is a regulation (that’s what the R stands for), not a directive. Directives must be transposed into national law by the member states, while regulations apply directly
Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.
Not everywhere.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
A very poor example; Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC.
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”, which member states then are bound to transpose into their national Civil Law systems. Judges can interprete that law in different ways, none of which creates a precedent. Only a country’s Supreme Court decision creates a precedent for that country, but even then it can be recurred up to the EU Tribunal, which has the last saying.
It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-
To summarise:
Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
You say I don’t read… then proceed to explain the same that I already said? Ok.
I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.
I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.
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
deleted by creator
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.
Libertarianism isn’t right wing in the states either. It got lumped in there to make it easier to mock them.
Political ideology is independent of where you live. Educate yourself
I did. This is the conclusion.
It’s all about individual freedom until you start asking libertarians about the rights of kids and contractual indentured servitude.
but almost no two libertarians will agree about those things. if you think there is only one “blessed” or accepted viewpoint on those topics, you’ve been duped.
for example on the rights of kids. there will be somebody who will argue they fully own themselves and parents are never allowed to hit children or otherwise harm them. then there will be some idiot who argues that because babies are helpless and the parents made it, that the parents “own” the child until some point and can do what they want with it. other libertarians will have even more differing viewpoints.
I don’t think having a diversity in viewpoints on whether kids have rights is something to celebrate.
Yeah, that can be different in other places. From a brazilian perspective, there is no “left” on US mainstream politics. There is only fascist-right, conservative right and center-right.
Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology though, it’s pro corporate deregulation and lasseiz-faire capitalism. If you’re pro individual freedom, but opposed to right-wing ideas then the closest thing you can be is an Anarchist.
Neither of those concepts are right wing.
All of it is capitalism, aka right-wing.
Cali is correct.
No. Fascism is right wing. Corporate deregulation and laissez faire capitalism are not what fascists or conservatives allow, pretty big threat to their power.
There are more than 1 right wing ideologies.
And lumping in borderline anarchists with conservatives and fascists is stupid
username checks out :D
I agree there’s abuse, but there are laws:
Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.
Both in Portuguese.
I’ll look into it further tomorrow. If I find out that I’m wrong, I’ll edit my comment saying so.
I bet you voted for bolsonaro
Twice!!
You’re right on the fact you’re not right leaning. Libertarian are far right.
This is going to get interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-x-could-face-ban-in-brazil-after-failure-to-appoint-legal-representative
Wow so Brazil has the freest democracy now?
Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil
On one hand yes, but on the other hand, he also likes to cozy up to dictators to an alarming degree.
Lol. “Free” i.e. government oppression that aligns with your political views.
It’s nice to see that some non-US countries are willing to stand up to this fascist turd.
A bit suppressive lol
Oh no.
Suppressing fascism.
Awful.
Let me grab my tissues.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, that’s the government reaching waaaay beyond what it should without any real laws to back it up, on the other hand, fuck Musk and if this is what it takes to keep gullible people off nazifascist misinformation and propaganda then 🤷♂️.
The law doesn’t function the same everywhere. When you start/run an international business, it is necessary to understand this. When you don’t, things like this happen.
Ok, but there isn’t anything in the Brazilian body of law that says social media needs to have legal representation in the country to be functional, otherwise TikTok, Reddit and even Lemmy would’ve been blocked long ago, that’s the argument being made. That said, nothing like this has ever happened before, so maybe this could serve as a precedent for a new series of legislations.
There is, the “Marco Civil da Internet” states that a business that works in Brazil needs to respect Brazil’s law, and non compliance may trigger block in it’s service by ruling. The representation don’t need to be on the country, the problem with Twitter is that they closed its offices here trying to avoid compliance in the first place. Elon is trying to enforce his views over Brazil’s law. To force a crisis IMHO.
Based on some opinion articles, there’s something to add: Xitter is bleeding money, fast. Closing Brazil’s office may be just a business move to limit costs. Doing it this way may be a strategy to limit the damage of admitting that the business health is in bad shape. With the added benefits of attack Brazil’s institutions and causing chaos that could benefit the far-right here.
He’s trying to see how far he can push his bullshit.
That’s the thing though, to my knowledge Twitter didn’t break any laws, they ignored an order to take down accounts from their website. You could make the argument that in ignoring that order they were going against the law, but that’s about it. And honestly, that’s not the first time that has happened, this time they just decided to block Twitter because Musk was being a little shit about it, again maybe this will serve as a precedent in the future.
Ignoring a ruling from a judge is against the law, in any country.
Sure, but there are those who say Moraes is overstepping with his demands. Quite frankly I don’t know what to say, all I know is that any loss for Musk is a win for me.
🤷♂️
This decision will go through collective decision on STF, soon will not be only Moraes decision.
Totally agree on that.
Oh yeah, not the person you replied to directly, but it’s insanely obvious to me that this is YET ANOTHER PR stunt to make Elon look like he’s being targeted. ANY other international social media would have tried to resolve this quietly, the public probably wouldn’t even know.
And many of them are heading to BlueSky…
Well tbf I’m seeing the introdução hashtag trending on Mastodon (on my server it is second)
And Threads
can confirm
I think I saw some new faces on Mastodon as well.
finally a fucking headline that mentions the problem
deleted by creator
Twitter, it’s Twitter!
They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.
“Tweets” is a permanent label of the short form message post. Changing it to “posts” is like calling text messages “essays”.
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
Why are the alternatives all so defecatory…
I actually think the poor branding is part of why Mastodon is hard to spread. Can you picture anyone seriously saying they “tooted” something? Because I can’t.
People said the same thing about tweet when twitter first came out.
Not the same. Twitter and tweets were uniquely brilliant in a way that “toot” will never be. Farts are unpleasant. Bird sounds are very pleasant. Also, Every hear the phrase “a little bird told me”? Or notice how in very old disney movies (which are based on old German fairytales), that the birds talk (tweet) to the heroines as benevolent messengers? Twitter was honestly the perfect name for the company. Mastodon is a terrible name, but better than X
it’s part of the appeal for me, it’s nice when things are fun
I can relate to that, but fart sounds are also seen as childish and immature by lots of people so the site will never be a serious Twitter alternative unless they pick a bird name
I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.
Mastodon is also just a terrible name for a Twitter alternative where nearly everyone thinks of the format as being tweets (a sound a bird makes). If they had to pick a animal name, then they should have picked a two syllable bird name like Magpie, Pigeon, Bluejay, Robin, Raven, or even a 3 syllable bird like StellarJay, Cockatoo, etc.
Because of enshittification lol
Toot actually isn’t official anymore. They changed it to notes (p sure), but the userbase decided to keep using toots because it’s cuter.
@miracleorange @TWeaK
It’s a tricky tusk. The elephant in the room.
yeah sure, “cuter”, definitely nothing to do with “toot” being slang for “small fart”.
Shits.
Spelt Xits
Xitter
Still too much honor for Elon. Twitter!
Um, excuse me, but I’m very well known for rexing awesome xs on x, and will definitely subx you for what you’ve lemmied here.
more countries need to do the same and get twitter to shut down everywhere