Notices by eibhear (eibhear@social.gibiris.org)

@thisismissem @anarchic_teapot @gutocarvalho I think you're not reading what I'm saying. Let's punish twitter for failing to abide by the laws, and let's punish those who decide that twitter would not obey the law. This is 100% clear, and something I agree with.

What I disagree with is the idea that a member of staff of twitter should be personally held liable -- up to the point of imprisonment -- for Musk's decisions, knowing as we all do that Musk listens to no one when he has a bee in his bonnet.

@gutocarvalho @renatofq Content moderation in social media companies is centralized.

The local representative would have nothing more than advisory powers, and we know Musk doesn't take advice.

@gutocarvalho @renatofq Which leaves the judge with the course he took.

But to expect that a local representative with no content moderation authority should go to jail for Musk's refusal to take down stuff is horrifying. To expect that a local representative would have content moderation authority is to fail to understand how social media companies work. This is something the judge should not have ordered.

@wonka @gutocarvalho @jeffries ... but that was my original question all those hours ago:

If the answer was always "no", we could have saved a great deal of energy.

@wonka @gutocarvalho @jeffries ... and there isn't a social media company anywhere in the world who will give content moderation authority to an officer in every country that requires it. Some expectations need to be adjusted for reality.

I restate for clarity here: I have no problem with twitter being blocked. My problem is that we should never accept an innocent person (an accountant? a janitor?) being appointed the designated hostage when a country has a dispute with a company's HQ.

@wonka @gutocarvalho @jeffries The local representative is not the captain. At best, it's the first officer's mate.

The operation of the ship is under Musk's control, and if there is someone to arrest, arrest him.

If someone can't represent the company locally because the company won't comply with the law, then they resign. If the company has shut down the office and there's no one in the country to represent the company, then there's no one in the country to represent the company.

In this case, it's Elon Musk.

I go back to some of my original questions to you:

• Was twitter ordered to appoint a local officer by the judge?
• If so, was that order made so that the judge would have someone local to personally punish?
• If so, how is it reasonable to expect someone with no authority in twitter to agree to such an appointment?
• Also, how do we think this isn't a human rights issue?

@thisismissem @gutocarvalho Yes. But, if the office is shut down, and the judge says: "open that office again so that I can arrest one of your employees because you won't comply with my orders", who would apply for that job?

Imagine if Musk really really wanted to re-open an office in Brazil, who would he get to agree to be sent to jail? Who would have loved ones who would allow them to be sent to prison for Musk. Would Musk actually care if someone went to jail for him? Would he be any less of an asshole?

The operating assumption where any of this is could work is that the office, the staff and the operations all take place within the jurisdiction. But, none of this is true for twitter and Brazil, so it's a bit odd to support the notion of employing someone to be arrested and jailed for Musk's decisions to operate a company (as shittily as he deems fit) in a completely different country.

@wonka @gutocarvalho @jeffries

• Order the website to be blocked
• Seize the company's assets
• If you can get the legislature to agree, pass a law banning government departments from advertising on the website.
• Shut down the company (i.e. de-register it).

If you make it about the individual, then you have a serious human rights issue on your hands.

@wonka @gutocarvalho @jeffries CEOs, yes.

Not appointed representatives for what the CEO does or fails to do.

Quitting is hardly an option if you've already had a warrant for your arrest issued:

Judge: "Jail that person!"
Policeman: "Why?"
Judge: "Because his boss broke the law"
Staff member: "I've quit -- I don't work there any more"
Boss: *continues breaking the law*
Judge: "Dammit. Foiled again!"

@gutocarvalho I accept all of that -- no argument.

But were the fines to be levied on the representative personally (i.e. "If twitter won't pay the fines, we'll make you personally liable for paying them")?

@gutocarvalho

Ok. I'll bite.

I understand that one of the orders that twitter refused to follow was to appoint a legal representative of twitter in Brazil.

My questions are...

• Is my understanding correct?
• If so, what purpose was this legal officer to serve?
• Was the judge intending to imprison that person if twitter continued to refuse the orders? If so, in what way is that not a human rights violation? Who did the judge think was stupid enough to agree to such an appointment?

@Qbitzerre @BeAware My new #copyright will be available only to individual creators. Corporations will have to stick with the current system:

Creativity is a personal act; this new right will only ever vest with the individual person who created the work, if that's their preference.

@BeAware Normal copyright, yes. My new special copyright would require registration to allow the creator have these additional controls.

(also, while the U.S. automatically grants copyright, I understand it requires the copyright to be registered before filing a law suit claiming infringement)

@kevinteljeur

What!?!? There is, and there will forever be, only one: GNU/Emacs.

Is #TheDitch on mastodon or some other ActivityPub/Fediverse service?

#Mastodaoine