• ancap shark@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Brazilian here. This a controversial topic, so take what I say as a opinion.

    Although Mask 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

    • salmoura@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not right leaning, but I’m as libertarian as one can be

      A right-winger, then? Cool, keep us posted.

      • ancap shark@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

        • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • John_McMurray@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              No. Fascism is right wing. Corporate deregulation and laissez faire capitalism are not what fascists or conservatives allow, pretty big threat to their power.

                  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Libertarians and ancaps are only anarchist in the most facile sense; they’re not actually anti-authority or anti hierarchy, they’re just anti authority-over-themselves. They have no issue mandating actions to others. Rules for thee but not for me/ rules that bind the outgroup only, is the hallmark of right-wing ideologies, and is ancaps and libertarians to a ‘t’.

        • LukeZaz@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • ancap shark@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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 really don’t know what that means

            • Empricorn@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Monopolies depend on the government to exist.

              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.

            • LukeZaz@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Monopolies depend on the government to exist.

              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.

        • John_McMurray@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Libertarianism isn’t right wing in the states either. It got lumped in there to make it easier to mock them.

        • arthur@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s all about individual freedom until you start asking libertarians about the rights of kids and contractual indentured servitude.

          • jdeath@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I don’t think having a diversity in viewpoints on whether kids have rights is something to celebrate.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • tromars@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

      • ancap shark@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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