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.


This seems so dystopian, there is some very big motivation behind these arbitrary decisions of this judge


How can a judge has this much power? He is not elected by anyone


Vitor são as últimas balas do primeiro juíz a ser cassado, não chega a quarta essa decisão, Xandão tá vendo a morte próxima


and no one has


And even if elected!


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.

nostr:note1qq70jx558rwmpsanw3rzuqw2m6s883x4f4p9fj4mcpcayc7ry4ksmwysp4


what scares me (well, more like disappoints me) is that so much nostr dev still happens on telegram. 😭

cut the cord already, dogfood with me.. itll help fix a ton of broken shit i promise.


This is an advertisement for protocols like nostr. People should have the right to own digital property.


(not you specifically vitor, allll of nostr dev) heh, im going insane over here missing even nip17 DMs like crazy.. after tons of testing too <ultimate table flip shrug emoji>


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

nostr:nevent1qqsqq08er22r3hdscwehg33wq89dagrncn256sj5e2auquwjv0pj2mgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzxpsj7dqha57pjk5k37gkn6g4nzakewtmqmnwryyhd3jfwlpgxtspsgqqqqqqs79qezr


We are sheeps..


He doesn't have this much power.


And aren’t there stiff fines for any Brazilian who uses a vpn or other methods to get around the ban?


An abusive law, excessive in the extreme if we consider that it extends a fine of 5000 USD to those who use VPN to access the social network X. Worthy of a dictatorship. Moreover, it does not distinguish the media and the entity from the representatives.


yeah, it's really frustrating, and a problem that really needs to be solved for adoption as well


we need a TREX mobile client


Yup, 50000 Brl per day (about 8900 Usd), but good look for them


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


The timing between this, Pavel detention and Europe ChatControl back in the agenda is too odd.


Nostr had appear in the right time, the same as Bitcoin

Two faces of the same coin!


He doesn't, technically...


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.


That's what an order of a dictator looks like.


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.

nostr:note1qq70jx558rwmpsanw3rzuqw2m6s883x4f4p9fj4mcpcayc7ry4ksmwysp4


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"


Onward 🫡

Onward 🫡


Please read my latest post about anonymity on the internet:
https://privacyandsafety.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/how-to-use-the-internet-anonymously/
Bitte lesen Sie meinen neuesten Beitrag über Anonymität im Internet:
https://privacyandsafety.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/so-nutzen-sie-das-internet-anonym/
Veuillez lire mon dernier article sur l'anonymat sur Internet:
https://privacyandsafety.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/comment-utiliser-internet-de-maniere-anonyme/
Lea mi última publicación sobre el anonimato en Internet:
https://privacyandsafety.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/como-usar-internet-de-forma-anonima/
Isso é para meus amigos brasileiros quando você foi trancado. Leia meu último post sobre anonimato na internet:
https://privacyandsafety.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/como-usar-a-internet-de-forma-anonima/