Éibhear 🔭 / is on Nostr

Matrix address: @eibhear:matrix.gibiris.org
Free Software user and supporter
Civil Liberties enthusiast
100% personal account
Also operating @[email protected]

Following me doesn't confer any opinion on you.

Website: [gibiris.org/eo-blog/](https://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/ )
Contact details: [gibiris.org/eo-blog/eibhear-li…](https://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/eibhear-links.html )

Last Notes

2024-09-19 00:23:52

- reply

Nah. The Brits will try to be the last. It's the sort of one-upmanship they internalise, and they may well succeed.

2024-09-01 13:52:11

- reply

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.

2024-08-31 23:22:05

- reply

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.

2024-08-31 23:02:19

- reply

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.

2024-08-31 20:30:26

- reply

... but that was my original question all those hours ago:
[quote]Was the judge intending to imprison that person if twitter continued to refuse the orders?[/quote]
If the answer was always "no", we could have saved a great deal of energy.

2024-08-31 20:17:00

- reply

So, the order to appoint a local officer was [i]not[/i] so that officer would be punished if Musk refused to obey the other orders?

2024-08-31 20:10:14

- reply

... 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.

2024-08-31 17:46:41

- reply

That next step could (and should) have been the first step: block the website and move on.

2024-08-31 17:45:54

- reply

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.
[quote]there is no company in the world without someone responsable for the company, period.[/quote]
In this case, it's Elon Musk.
I go back to some of my original questions to you:
[list]
[li] Was twitter ordered to appoint a local officer by the judge?
[li] If so, was that order made so that the judge would have someone local to personally punish?
[li] If so, how is it reasonable to expect someone with no authority in twitter to agree to such an appointment?
[li] Also, how do we think this isn't a human rights issue?
[/list]

2024-08-31 17:36:55

- reply

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.

2024-08-31 17:29:05

- reply

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!"

2024-08-31 17:22:50

- reply

[list]
[li] Order the website to be blocked
[li] Seize the company's assets
[li] If you can get the legislature to agree, pass a law banning government departments from advertising on the website.
[li] Shut down the company (i.e. de-register it).
[/list]
If you make it about the individual, then you have a serious human rights issue on your hands.

2024-08-31 16:37:54

- reply

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")?

2024-08-31 16:23:00

- reply

[quote]If you have question I'm here to help![/quote]
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...
[list]
[li] Is my understanding correct?
[li] If so, what purpose was this legal officer to serve?
[li] 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?
[/list]

2024-07-31 11:57:00

- reply

Our administration, political and civil, is frozen by the fear of the moral hazard: If we make it easier for people in general to do something, some will abuse that facility. Therefore, we can't make it easier for anyone.
It's pathetic, and it perpetuates all forms of inequality in Ireland.

2024-07-31 11:01:51

- reply

We had a debate about that a few years ago in Ireland. The Green party leader, of [i]all[/i] people, as minister for transport dismissed the idea on the grounds that it would result in a lot of unnecessary journeys.
I still reel at the pathetic excuse.