Technology

39347 readers

181 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Brazil rules that social media platforms are responsible for users’ posts (restofworld.org)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On Thursday, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that digital platforms are responsible for users’ content — a major shift in a country where millions rely on apps like WhatsApp, Instagram, and YouTube every day.

The ruling, which goes into effect within weeks, mandates tech giants including Google, X, and Meta to monitor and remove content involving hate speech, racism, and incitement to violence. If the companies can show they took steps to remove such content expeditiously, they will not be held liable, the justices said.

Brazil has long clashed with Big Tech platforms. In 2017, then-congresswoman Maria do Rosário sued Google over YouTube videos that wrongly accused her of defending crimes. Google didn’t remove the clips right away, kicking off a legal debate over whether companies should only be punished if they ignore a judge.

In 2023, following violent protests largely organized online by supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, authorities began pushing harder to stop what they saw as dangerous behavior spreading through social networks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

For context:

There's an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly "internet civil framework"), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to "if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn't legally responsible, unless there's a specific judicial order telling it to remove it."

So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it's unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.

I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:

False positives becoming more common.
The burden will be considerably bigger for smaller platforms than bigger ones.
It gives the STF yet another tool for vendetta. The judiciary is already a bit too strong in comparison with the other two powers, and this decision only feeds the beast further.

On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (5 children)

When something similar happened in the UK, it was pretty much exclusively smaller/niche forums, run by volunteers and donations, that went offline.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wasn't that because of age verification though?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

No. It was also down to holding them potentially viable for what their users post.

A forum about hamsters shut down.

load more comments (3 replies)