I'm not sure what that proves, though. Even if the judge you mention was not totally out of control, and was actually applying the law properly and correctly (with the same outcome), I could very easily see a large number of people being all "no, not my Twitters, what am I going to do with my afternoons now?" without giving any critical thought to whether or not the law is being followed and if that's a problem.
This is an excellent example of how statistics can be manipulated. Of course people don’t want to ban a service they use, but if the question had been “is it ok for foreign companies offering services to Brazilian citizens to ignore Brazilian law” the result would probably be different
And it would further be a different result if the question was:
"Is it ok for foreign companies offering services to Brazilian citizens to ignore Brazilian law? Even if that company is Twitter and it means you lose access to Twitter?"
The average person does not really care about what's right or wrong or fair - just what's in their interest.
The average person cannot or does not think - "But what if a bunch of other companies were doing this thing? What if we had to treat them all fairly?"
That's why it's good when you have a legal system that at least attempts to be fair - instead of just populist and doing whatever people want.
I know a fair number of people and most of them do visibly struggle with what is right or wrong at times. Cooperation is very much a mainstay of human behavior. Or of course some people believe that what is good is also in their own interest, long term and considering the effect posing what you believe is wrong has on your own self. They do things believing them to be good and also in their interests. But they certainly
don't ignore what is good.
His approval was 37% in March, before most of the worst controversies became known, including an humiliating whatsapp leak. Wouldn't be surprised if it were in the 20s or 10s now.
Just to be clear, the sample size of 1200 is enough for a margin of error of 3% with a 95% CI. It is a huge sample for the claim being made for a population the size of Brazil.
Irrelevant. Disagreeing on moral terms is not the same as deciding it has not followed the law and must face repercussions, which is what was decided here.
