I will be interested in how this plays out. I believe it's Section 230 [0] that allows US platforms to not be held liable. I'd be keen to understand whether this effectively bans social media (and comment sections?) from Brazil, or whether people need to click an I-promise-I'm-not-Brazilian button to access them.
Brazilian here. We still don't know if small things like comment sections and personal blogs will be under the new rules as our supreme court hasn't made any explicit exemption but their debates on the topic focused only on big techs. There is a chance an appeal will be filed to seek this kind of clarification.
As for buttons "I promisse I'm not Brazilian", that wouldn't really fly if the company in question has a lot of users in Brazil.
I suspect that we will see government enforcement only against big techs (especially Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube).
I genuinely doubt there will be many lawsuits targeting small websites because there isn't money to be made off them. So any litigation here will probably be restricted to personal revenge cases or something like it.
I really wish this had been settled in Congress with more cleat rules and language instead of decided by the courts.
ChrisArchitect · 1h ago
Previously:
Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content
US Social Media should just cancel service to that territory.
paxys · 33m ago
Don't threaten them with a good time
triceratops · 1h ago
It would help Brazil a lot.
mastotoot · 2h ago
What is the difference in cost to provide the service?
andrenth · 2h ago
“Brazilian Supreme Court suddenly deems 11-year-old law unconstitutional after their own corruption is exposed on social media”
infotainment · 4h ago
I'd rather just a full blanket ban on social media, but I guess it's something.
Social media is basically what cigarettes were in the 50s: everyone uses it, and seemingly no one is aware of how it is almost entirely bad.
russdill · 3h ago
All this does if make things worse. Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction.
andrekandre · 3h ago
> Things like banning the sale of personal information would be a step in the right direction.
it really seems like its the business model that is the real issue. especially with regards to algorithms favoring "engagement" which leads to promotion of rage-baiting and concern-trolling among many other pathological contents.
infotainment · 3h ago
I suspect social media's biggest problems (engagement bait, brainrot, echo chambers, etc), would generally not be fixed even with a ban on sale of personal data.
gjvnq · 2h ago
A big issue here would be defining social media.
Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube?
I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.
terribleperson · 21m ago
My take would be something like this:
Any public or public-ish website, or website with more than x user which presents algorithmically sorted or curated content must make readily available the source feed for their algorithms as well as any other information they use.
On any page where algorithmically sorted or curated content is presented, they must fully describe the algorithm used. Ditto anywhere you select an algorithm or navigate to an algorithmically curated or sorted page - it must be described fully in the button or selector, or adjacent to it. If that is impractical for space reasons, it should be described as best as possible with footnotes expanding on the explanation.
Furthermore, the explanation, source feed, and additional information should be complete and clear such that someone could reasonably recreate a page or sorting given the algorithm, source feed, and additional info. This would be the test used in court if someone alleged infringement.
My hope is that such a law would heavily bias sites towards simple, less manipulative algorithms.
infotainment · 2h ago
I think this is a reasonable take; a good start would be banning all forms of algorithmic "discovery" recommendations, and things like "for you" feeds.
Spivak · 1h ago
Yes, yes, and yes. You picked basically the three most obvious examples of social media.
Is it a site that hosts user generated content and makes that content available to others in any 1-n fashion? Great, you have social media.
t-writescode · 35m ago
Is a group chat? Is Discord? What if the Discord invite link is public?
[0] Not a lawyer so wikipedia is the best I have - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
As for buttons "I promisse I'm not Brazilian", that wouldn't really fly if the company in question has a lot of users in Brazil.
I suspect that we will see government enforcement only against big techs (especially Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube).
I genuinely doubt there will be many lawsuits targeting small websites because there isn't money to be made off them. So any litigation here will probably be restricted to personal revenge cases or something like it.
I really wish this had been settled in Congress with more cleat rules and language instead of decided by the courts.
Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44256169
Social media is basically what cigarettes were in the 50s: everyone uses it, and seemingly no one is aware of how it is almost entirely bad.
Are forums social media? What about reddit? What about YouTube?
I think what we really need is a ban on algorithmic recommendations that seek to encourage engagement or total time spent on the app.
My hope is that such a law would heavily bias sites towards simple, less manipulative algorithms.
Is it a site that hosts user generated content and makes that content available to others in any 1-n fashion? Great, you have social media.