[matheusmoreira]

Why are you downvoted? You're correct.

> There is no need to “comply with local laws”, because no such laws were passed.

This is the key point. A "fake news" law was proposed. Google even campaigned against it -- and this judge slapped them with arbitrary fines for "abuse of economic power", whatever that is. The law was ultimately rejected by our representatives. And this judge rammed the laws through anyway via "resolutions".

It makes no sense to talk about "laws" at this point. There are no laws here, only the whims of this judge. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law.

[rsrsrs86]

You see, you are a victim of misinformation. You are reaching at an immaterial argument that doesn’t advance the question really. Twitter has not been good to any society, or we would to go throug heaps of evidence on the bad effects social media has on society.

Let’s argue over whether social media is beneficial or not, because unless you are a lawyer specialized in constitutional law and individual rights, there’s no lawyer here to really argue over fine points of the law.

[matheusmoreira]

I'm a victim of nothing but constant gaslighting from people like you.

I'm not hallucinating the fact that the "fake news" law was rejected by our representatives, or the fact that these same judges rammed them through anyway via electoral court "resolutions". I know what I saw and I won't have people denying it or calling it "fake news". You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this.

Whether Twitter is good or bad for society is completely irrelevant and I will not argue with you over it.

[rsrsrs86]

If the good of the society is irrelevant to you, you are by definition a sociopath.

[crop_rotation]

If you have determined you already know what is good for society, you should campaign to be the global dictator. Like seriously by your logic a person in power can decide they know "what is good for society" and ignore all rules/laws anything and gave them any power they need. And before you say "Court interprets the constitution" by that absurd logic the court can say the Constitution made them supreme monarchs and you will defend it. The other commenter is making valid points and answering your queries in good faith, and you are engaging in void bad faith arguments.

By your absurd logic, "good of society" is supreme and some judge knows it best, why on earth hold elections? Why not let the judge anoint himself or his cronies for "the greater good"?

[matheusmoreira]

The fate of Twitter is completely irrelevant. The circumstances that led to Twitter being blocked by our ISPs is the only reason it is being discussed at all.

If you cared one bit about what's good for this society, you would not be trying to divert attention from this omnipotent judge-king's actions.