3:25 PM
@CaffeineAddiction that's the ruling, but it's that kind of rules that are only enforced on people they want to make an example of, to publicity... nobody is going to jail because of a VPN
it's just to spread fear, so the average guy stays out of twitter, celebrities are afraid of vpn-ing their way in, so twitter loses its appeal. normal guys don't bother with a vpn because there's no content, content producers don't post anything because of a 10k USD fine (that's around 4 years of salary on minimum wage)
it's because of the rules for blocking content, kinda like DMCA... a few years ago people would post hate content, homophobic, fake news and the like, and a judge would ask twitter to take down the content, and that one problematic tweet got killed. and everybody was happy.
but last election it changed because bots of all kinds started spamming twitter right and left, with messages from left and right, so a judge would have to submit thousands of take down requests per account, and it would not work.
so our Supreme Court got the nuclear option: nuke the entire account. It solved the issue at the time, elections came and went, and the opportunity for bots passed. It was 2 years ago, on the presidential elections. But the ruling survived the crisis.
today there are a few accounts that post "inappropriate content" according to one judge, and instead of falling back to the "take down one set of tweets" he went with the "block the account" instead. Most jurists are saying it's too heavy handed, but a judge in the supreme court has priority.
X disobeyed, gov threatened to fine, X ignored, gov fined, X didn't paid, gov told it would have X CEO here criminally accountable, X dissolved the operations so nobody to be sued, so gov told the ISPs around to block X and throw a 50K BRL fine (around 10k USD) for a country where the minimum wage is a bit over 1k BRL.
« first day (5012 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (70 days later) »