
Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters - anigbrowl
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53625728
======
castevictim
I am glad that Brazil's court still remains independent.

Looks like Bolsonaro, should borrow couple of tips from his friend Narendra
Modi. Modi, dismantled the institutions in India systematically to guarantee
his long lasting power.

e.g.

The only official from the election commission who didn't give a clean-chit to
Modi for his election campaign violations during last election was greeted
with Income Tax raids on his family members after the election, now he has
been transferred to Asian Bank(He was next in line to become Chief Election
Commissioner).

Look at the current Chief Justice of India, posing with limited edition Harley
Davidson[0], which apparently was brought to him 'just for a demo by a local
dealer and definitely does not belong to the son of a ruling party member'!

Former Chief Justice of India, has been given membership in parliament!

[0][https://theprint.in/india/photos-of-justice-bobde-
astride-a-...](https://theprint.in/india/photos-of-justice-bobde-astride-a-
hunky-harley-davidson-reveal-different-side-to-indias-cji/450849/)

~~~
gavribirnbaum
Brazilian here. Unfortunately I wouldn't call them independent. They simply
represent the other side. Brazil is not as united behind Bolsonaro as the
media makes out to be.

~~~
egeozcan
I'm originally from Turkey, and that's also the case with Erdoğan. I mean,
they wouldn't be dictators if everyone agreed with them, no?

The big problem arising from the stark polarization is that there's no
uncontaminated news sources anymore. Many argue that news should be political
anyway but I really miss reading stuff that doesn't fit 100 percent to a
single agenda.

~~~
gavribirnbaum
Hold on, Bolsonaro is not a dictator. Federalism even recently screwed him
over. He didn't act on COVID but individual states imposed their own measures
and thankfully countered his opinion.

~~~
lkrubner
That's like saying Mussolini was not a dictator in 1922, because there were
still so many factions competing against him in Italian politics. Possibly
true, but it's also clear what direction he was heading. By 1925 he had
largely consolidated his power.

~~~
gavribirnbaum
Well I'm also super concerned that he has expressed dictatorial aspirations.
But as of right now the constitution holds.

~~~
iandanforth
"Super concerned?" The guy wanted to celebrate the coup that started the last
dictatorship. Stop splitting hairs.

[http://www.iconnectblog.com/2019/04/bolsonaros-
unconstitutio...](http://www.iconnectblog.com/2019/04/bolsonaros-
unconstitutional-support-for-the-brazilian-civil-military-dictatorship-
of-1964-1985/)

Note: Trump's call for postponing the election is exactly the same thing.
Evidence they have no interest in constitutional democracy and will, at the
earliest possible moment, impose total control on the country.

~~~
gavribirnbaum
Read what I said. I said I'm super concerned about it :D

------
antropofagico
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision.

This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing
judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of
interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and
penal spheres.

The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of
the investigation. Also, it’s explicitly mentioned that, given the evidences
(which the accused parties have access to), some individual rights are being
suspended, as they’re not shields for committing crimes or avoiding
responsibility. The decision also mentions that Constitutional rights don’t
exist on their own, they find their limits in the other equally important
rights and guarantees contained in the Constitution. This is not some exotic
feature of Brazilian law, it’s something also mentioned in the Declaration of
Human Rights (which is also cited).

Having said that, all affected parties have the right to contest the measure,
this is not an autocratic decision.

Finally, if Facebook and Twitter wants to operate in Brazil, they need to
comply with Brazilian laws, including complying with court decisions. You can
definitely argue against blocking the information world wide, but similar
decisions were made by other democratic countries (like Canada).

~~~
sizeofchar
> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing
> judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of
> interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and
> penal spheres.

Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side
(the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in
the law that allows this, and the constitution plainly prohibits it. They are
abusing their power and are censoring activists, journalists and politicians,
plain and simple.

> (which the accused parties have access to)

Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the
case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal
accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.

~~~
antropofagico
It’s arguably lawful. By the Brazilian Constitution, investigation on crimes
committed against the Supreme Court are to be presided and supervised by the
court itself. Furthermore, it’s been established that the whatever case comes
out of the investigation will be sent to the Attorney General. It’s up to him
follow prosecution. So no, they’re not the inquirer and the judge.

Questioning procedures is a healthy part of the democratic game. But it
doesn’t change the fact that there’s evidence that crimes we’re committed, and
legal action is being taken.

~~~
sizeofchar
There is a internal regiment that postulates the court investigates crimes
within the court. Justices then, by their own, and extrapolating
interpretation of the law, came out that the Supreme Court abroads national
territory, thus any act against it is considered "within". Does it seem fair
to you?

Also, can you enlist a single of said crimes against the court?

------
thimabi
The technical argument from the court is quite intriguing.

The Supreme Court justice only wants to prevent access to the blocked profiles
within Brazil. However, he says Facebook should not allow Brazilians
themselves to view such profiles by “subterfuge” (by changing their registered
country on Facebook settings or using VPNs, according to the Court’s tech
advisors).

In the end, the most efficient way for Facebook to comply with this order is a
worldwide ban.

Facebook may have a shot at reversing the ban and the fines on its appeal. But
it certainly doesn't help that several previous orders on this case had been
ignored before.

~~~
irthomasthomas
Where did you read the technical arguments? The article doesn't mention them.
In fact, the article is very light on information, and only left me confused
about the situation, like why are the presidents supporters calling for a
coup? And how does blocking a dozen accounts change anything, really? Would
the people behind them not simply open more sockpuppet accounts?

~~~
ratww
_> why are the presidents supporters calling for a coup_

Acts asking for a militar coup have been happening for the last few years
among the radical right. Their demands are not clear enough, so most news
reports are about them happening and events surrounded them, such as the
president appearing in some of them. [1] [2]

\---

I'm not going to guess what they want, so let's just translate what their
banners say. Hopefully I can be unbiased.

\- "Military intervention / Close the supreme court and congress / With
Bolsonaro as president" [3]

\- "Military tribunal", "Criminalize Communism", among others I can't read
[4].

\- "Military intervention so that Bolsonaro can govern". In the back:
"criminalize communism" [5].

\- "AI-5 with Bolsonaro in power" [6].

The last one is about AI-5. AI-5, according to Wiki:

"resulted in the forfeiture of mandates, interventions ordered by the
President in municipalities and states and also in the suspension of any
constitutional guarantees which eventually resulted in the
institutionalization of the torture commonly used as a tool by the State." [7]

The previous reference is in english.

\---

 _> And how does blocking a dozen accounts change anything, really? Would the
people behind them not simply open more sockpuppet accounts?_

Some of them are under house arrest and forbidden from using social networks.
[7]

The others are stopped for different reasons, but according to a news website
"there's still no information about the reasons". [8]

If they open sock puppets, this will probably be dealt with in a case by case
basis.

\---

Sorry for the excessive number of sources. This is still ongoing and very hard
to explain, so I have no recourse.

[1]
[https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-52353804](https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-52353804)

[2]
[https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/04/19/bolsonaro-d...](https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/04/19/bolsonaro-
discursa-em-manifestacao-em-brasilia-que-defendeu-intervencao-militar.ghtml)

[3]
[https://media.gazetadopovo.com.br/2020/04/22162620/manifesta...](https://media.gazetadopovo.com.br/2020/04/22162620/manifestacao-
intervencao-brasilia-sergio-lima-afp-960x540.jpg) /
[https://mediastorage.cnnbrasil.com.br/IMAGES/00/00/00/3368_7...](https://mediastorage.cnnbrasil.com.br/IMAGES/00/00/00/3368_745E8B537C8E0C3D.jpg)

[4]
[https://conteudo.imguol.com.br/c/noticias/c0/2020/06/21/2106...](https://conteudo.imguol.com.br/c/noticias/c0/2020/06/21/21062020
---ato-de-apoiadores-de-bolsonaro-tem-pedidos-anticonstitucionais-de-
intervencao-militar-1592766183921_v2_450x337.jpg)

[5] [https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/06/Apoiadores-
Bolsonaro-...](https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/06/Apoiadores-Bolsonaro-QG-
Exercito-IntervencaoMilitar-Constituicao-comunismo-27-868x644.jpg)

[6] [https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/04/bolsonaro-
AI-5.jpg](https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/04/bolsonaro-AI-5.jpg)

[7]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_Act_Number_Five](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_Act_Number_Five)

[8]
[https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-53570792](https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-53570792)

[9] [https://economia.ig.com.br/2020-07-31/luciano-hang-da-
havan-...](https://economia.ig.com.br/2020-07-31/luciano-hang-da-havan-tem-
conta-retida-no-twitter-pela-justica.html)

~~~
rbanffy
> \- "AI-5 with Bolsonaro in power" [6].

Brazilian living abroad here. This one is particularly hilarious/concerning
because they keep screaming "censorship" against the supreme court orders and
censoring the press was one of the policies instituted by the AI-5 decree.

I lived through the second half of the dictatorship. I'd rather lock up those
who ask for one than see my country under one.

------
ve55
Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or
billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is
one?

~~~
refurb
I agree. You may not agree with Zuckerberg's position of not censoring content
(beyond the obscene), but it's probably the smartest position for the
business.

As soon as you start saying "well, we'll censor stuff that isn't accurate",
you've opened a Pandora's box of every single interest group hammering you on
every single decision and in the end everyone thinks you're screwing them
over.

~~~
riffraff
> beyond the obscene

I mean, that's pretty arbitrary too, e.g. FB censors female breasts, which is
not considered obscene in many places.

It's a difficult line to walk.

~~~
chmod775
Where I live even full nudity would not be considered obscene at all, unless
something sexual was going on.

However it is becoming more and more the case. With American platforms and
media, their learned attitude of being overly prude also made their way here.
Though I'm not sure whether "prude" is the right word to describe the
crippling self-consciousness many experience when faced with nude humanity.

I suspect it has be actively instilled by your parents and society around you
while you are still young, or you won't ever have it.

~~~
andrewflnr
As an American, I don't think it's "crippling self-consciousness", we're just
trained to think of nudity as sexually provocative in itself.

~~~
rhizome
"It's not the nudity that's bad, it's the sexual provocation! I mean, I don't
care if they're topless in their own homes, but do they have to _flaunt_ it?
They're so in-your-face."

------
gruez
What is it going to take for facebook to voluntarily exit a country?
Courts/governments all around the world are pushing the limits on what their
jurisdictions cover, and facebook is being spineless. With this case it's
somewhat reasonable, in the sense that the action mainly affects Brazilians,
but how long until countries try to use its citizens as leverage to get
facebook to conduct foreign influence? eg. country A (50M population) wants
country B's (5M population) president to be blocked _worldwide_ because he
badmouthed country A. Will facebook exit country A, or cave to their demands
because they got more leverage?

~~~
Kaze404
I would do anything for Facebook to leave mine. If this is a step in that
direction, I'm all for it.

~~~
unishark
To be immediately replaced by a local imitation founded by a politically-
connected mogul. But at least it'll be local.

~~~
Kaze404
I don't see how that's any worse than the politically-connected mogul from a
foreign country we have now.

------
cesarb
If you can read Portuguese, you can get more information here:
[https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-ago-01/facebook-bloqueia-
aces...](https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-ago-01/facebook-bloqueia-acesso-
perfis-bolsonaristas-mundo-inteiro)

Follow the links to older articles, and several of them have at their end the
original court decision. The latest one (found at
[https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/moraes-aumenta-
multa-f...](https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/moraes-aumenta-multa-forcar-
facebook-bloquear-perfis)) is [https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-alexandre-
moraes.pdf](https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-alexandre-moraes.pdf) and the
previous one seems to have been (found at
[https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/facebook-informa-
nao-c...](https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-31/facebook-informa-nao-cumprir-
decisao-bloquear-perfis-fora-pais)) [https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-
alexandre-moraes-twitte...](https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-alexandre-
moraes-twitter.pdf)

Finally, the original decision seems to have been (found at
[https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-24/decisao-alexandre-
twit...](https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jul-24/decisao-alexandre-twitter-
apaga-contas-aliados-bolsonaro))
[https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/inq-4781.pdf](https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/inq-4781.pdf)
(a cleaner copy of this last one can also be found at the Brazilian Supreme
Court website:
[http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/ma...](http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/mandado27maio.pdf)).

------
nagamatsu
Brazilian here. I sincerely dislike those who were blocked, but don't be
fooled, what the Supreme Court is doing here is completely dictatorial.

------
rvr_
Brazilian here. Our law is incompatible with the Internet as we know it.

Below is a brief excerpt from our 1989 Constitution, translated by myself:

Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza,
garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a
inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à
propriedade, nos termos seguintes:

(All men are equal by the law, without any distinction, guaranteed to
Brazilians and foreigners living on the Country the inviolable right to life,
freedom, equality, safety, property, on the following terms:)

(...)

IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato;

(The freedom of speech/thinking is allowed, __but anonymity is not __)

(...)

~~~
matheusmoreira
Yes. Courts all over the world are discovering and dealing with the
difficulties of imposing their own nation's laws on an _international_
communications network. Currently it is relatively easy to become anonymous on
the internet and avoid the consequences of free speech, especially since
brazilian law enforcement is not as sophisticated as organizations such as the
FBI when it comes to cyber crime investigation.

The end result will be the regionalization of the internet. Instead of one
global network, we'll have several national or regional networks. This will be
possible because internet providers are centralized services which are easily
controlled by the governments.

------
htk
Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated.

What should be prohibited to be said, if anything? Who draws the line?

~~~
controversy
Don't prohibit speech. That's it. Repugnance is part of life. If you suppress
speech, you only push it underground. Light is the best disinfectant. Daryl
Davis, a black musician, attends Klan rallies
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw)).
By knowing who to speak with, he's helped people out of that racist pit.

I extend speech so far to include calls to violence. Then you know who to
watch and who to protect. Hiding this does nothing but make intel harder to
get. You can't try to prevent radicalization, because you've pushed it so far
out of the light, it might as well be a mole. They'll still eat the roots of
your modern democracy, but you'll be surprised.

~~~
fuvkthisguy
Honestly I think this just doesn't work out this way in reality. First of all,
we know that deplatforming racists/fascists does actually help to stop the
spread of racist/fascist ideas.

Secondly, and I think this is the more salient point, encountering
racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever speech as a person who is the target of
such rhetoric is immediately harmful and othering, especially when these views
aren't actively challenged or disavowed by society. This doesn't even include
the possibility that hearing hate speech might trigger some prior trauma
experienced because of one's identity.

By taking this stance, you're implicitly advocating the allowance of direct
threats to other people's very existence, under the justitification that
everyone will be better off that way because it's all out in the open. To me,
that just sounds like you don't really understand the impact that hate speech
can have on a person's ability to live with the same freedoms and
opportunities that other members of society enjoy.

Example: You have a job interview downtown, but you're black and the Klan has
a parade scheduled that day, and you're scared of the calls for violence. You
don't make the interview, so you obviously don't get the job. You were denied
the opportunity to because of the 'free speech' of others.

I for one would like to see more focus on Freedom of Association alongside
Freedom of Speech in discussions like these - you can argue whatever you like,
but nobody has to listen to you or give you a platform (and if you're a
fascist, they shouldn't, and should be actively deplatforming you because your
ideas are so awful/dangerous).

~~~
controversy
My response is that everyone should carry. If the Klan goes nuts, the Klan
gets shot. Eventually the system will react an equilibrium.

I agree with your freedom of association. My only note would be that removing
people from the means of financial transactions is the same as limiting
speech.

~~~
labster
I tend to prefer solutions to social problems where no one gets shot.

~~~
controversy
As do I. The fact of the matter is that the cops average 11 minutes to respond
in good areas. They take longer in high crime areas. Further, we've seen that
the cops are generally bad people. So leave policing to the average person.

If the Klan attacks people, they can freely be shot. If the Klan parades
around in their sheets, meh.

------
hu3
I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent
for that judge to block any account it sees fit under the threat of
imprisoning a Facebook or Twitter employer.

> Given the threat of criminal liability to a local employee, at this point we
> see no other alternative than complying with the decision by blocking the
> accounts globally, while we appeal to the Supreme Court.

~~~
rumanator
> I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent
> for that judge to block any account it sees fit

The ruling was based on track records of conducting libel campaigns targetting
anyone who could jeopardize Bolsonaro's political goals, not to mention
supporting military coups to allow him to become president for life and
silence any critic.

And it seems you're missing the fact that the ruling specifically targets sock
puppet accounts controlled by a couple of Bolsonaro Minions, such as the
leader of Bolsonaro's party and one of Bolsonaro's main backer.

The judge didn't based his decision on whims.

~~~
hu3
The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block
worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law.

I couldn't care less about what said accounts were posting if they were
protected by the 1st amendment.

The problem here is the precedence of an overreach.

~~~
rumanator
> The issue here is, as stated in the article, facebook was ordered to block
> worldwide access to facebook accounts based on brazilian law.

It really isn't. ISPs are also required to cut access to illegal content.
Facebook is a service provider that willingly provides access to illegal
content, thus it is required to take it down.

That's the whole point of the ruling.

~~~
hu3
Not sure I follow the logic.

The content is illegal in Brazil only for now.

The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.

~~~
rumanator
> The content is illegal in Brazil only for now.

There is no such thing as "only for now". Either it violates the law, or it
doesn't. The court deemed that it breaks the law, thus the law should not
continue to be broken. Hence the ruling.

> The ruling explicitly tells facebook to take down content worldwide.

The court determined that Facebook hosts content that violates the law.
Therefore Facebook should remove the offending content. That's it.

~~~
hu3
The #Brazilian# court deemed that it breaks the law.

As far as I know no other court addressed the matter so far.

Facebook argues that content should only be taken down where it breaks the
law, which is reasonable.

Otherwise you'll see, for example, Facebook and Twitter silencing accounts of
Turkish dictator Erdogan's opposition worldwide because that specific country
deemed their speech to be illegal.

------
pelasaco
I hope Facebook is able to revert it. To globally block an account, could lead
to some court in the country A, blocks accounts in the country B. For example,
Venezuela could block politic opposition posting something in US.

------
emersonrsantos
You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists and
citizens.

~~~
rumanator
> You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists
> and citizens.

Bolsonaro's supporters were caught calling for a military coup to allow
Bolsonaro to become Brazil's dictator, as well as fabricating accusations and
stories that targetted anyone who was inconvenient to Bolsonaro's political
agenda.

You should check where you base your slippery slope fallacy because any
journalist who did the same would be out of a job for plenty of good reasons.

~~~
0xy
Mainstream media journalists regularly fabricate accusations and target people
based on political agenda.

Nick Sandmann sued several of them successfully for defamation, because they
ruined the life of an innocent underage high school student based on
politically biased reporting.

------
Camillo
If China demanded that its great firewall apply to Chinese citizens abroad,
this would be considered a shocking authoritarian overreach by most people in
the west. Yet a judge in Brazil can order that, and it's just taken at face
value?

Put another way: if the BBC can identify Bolsonaro as "far-right", why not
call the judge "far-left" for doing something that not even the Communist
Party of China does? Or far-something, at any rate.

~~~
ben_w
The second paragraph doesn’t follow from the first. “Rule of law” and “stop
taking the piss” aren’t left- or right-wing.

Also:

* China achieves the same goals with the Great Firewall

* Despite this, “Gap apologised to China for selling a shirt in its North American outlets featuring a map of the country without Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh included” - [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-maps-des...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-maps-destroyed-taiwan-arunachal-pradesh-india-territory-disputed-south-tibet-a8840836.html)

* Even in liberal democracies: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism)

~~~
Camillo
I think I have more of a European (civil law?) conception of "rule of law",
centered on the law itself: it must be clearly written, it must apply equally
to everyone, etc.

Americans seem to use the term for something that should more properly be
called "rule of magistrates". Judges can order pretty much whatever they want
(unless overruled by a higher judge); prosecutors can charge or not charge
different people for the same crime at their discretion; the Supreme Court
just grabbed the power to decide what is constitutional, which the
constitution nowhere grants it; etc.

~~~
senkora
> “rule of magistrates”

A legal system where judicial precedent has the force of law is called a
Common Law system, as opposed to a Civil Law system.

Common Law is less of an American thing and more of a former British empire
thing.

------
thrway1299723
It is worth noting that both Facebook and Twitter have appealed, citing that
the measures have been too drastic.

Given Twitter's and FB's history, and the fact that Bolsonaro supporters tend
to be more "right wing", that's when you know that the Brazilian court order
is WAY out of line ...

~~~
vmception
that's pretty funny, but no they just don't want to deal with it, all they
hear is "what do you mean, lose users?"

------
iron0013
Sounds like they were engaging in straight-up slander—-even worse than if they
had “cancelled” their victims, whatever that actually means.

~~~
smt88
Slander is a reason to have slander suits, not a ban on a class of people
imposed on a social network.

I'm all for the free market (i.e. users) pressuring social networks to ban
certain groups, like pedophiles or neo-Nazis.

I'm deeply against a government telling a social network that any broad class
of people should be banned, especially if they're mainstream enough that their
leader is in office.

~~~
foepys
> I'm deeply against a government telling a social network that any broad
> class of people should be banned, especially if they're mainstream enough
> that their leader is in office.

Even if those people are calling for a coup d'etat to change the democracy
into a dictatorship and place this leader at the top?

~~~
smt88
> _Even if those people are calling for a coup d 'etat to change the democracy
> into a dictatorship and place this leader at the top?_

If they are calling for violence, I support govt censorship only of the
violent speech and only if each case is considered individually.

------
MikusR
How long before Facebook is forced to be sold to a Brazilian company?

