The reconnect thing is actually quite helpful for mobile use cases. Say the user switches the tab, closes their browser or loses network and then they return. Since SSE is stateless from the client's perspective, the client can just reconnect and continue receiving messages. Whereas with WS there's handshakes to worry about--and also other annoyances like what to do with pending requests before connection was lose.
They reopened with formal understanding that there will be an executive order tomorrow to suspend the enforcement of the ban. That is a big deal and it's something that they can point to to defend themselves in court should that happen. When President Biden signed the bill, it gave him the ability to extend the deadline by an amount which he declined to do (beyond saying "I'll let Trump admin deal with it"); and soon-to-be President Trump is saying he will do it tomorrow.
Are you privy to the private discussions between Trump and the heads of TikTok, Apple, Google, and Oracle? Or are you simply assuming there have been no such private discussions?
Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.
That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.
That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.
If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.
Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powers to their benefit is literally just bribery.
In what universe does this apply to the president? If the president promises a company to do X, it’s not a contract. I’m not even sure the president is allowed to make a contract with a private entity to give them a political favor.
There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from engaging in contracts because of holding public office. In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign promises would be more likely to be executed. Again qualified immunity would probably make these contracts impossible to enforce against a politician, but in this case the agreement would work as a defense if for some reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for continuing to work with TikTok.
Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally clarify matters when he gets into office.
Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.
I don't see anything particularly controversial here.
I'm pretty certain an executive order cannot overrule a law. So they're just hoping to either get an actual reversal of the law while Trump is in term or just hoping nobody after him will care.
It's like betting on jury nullification but without the benefit of double jeopardy protection. It's unclear if any of the US companies the law is aimed at will risk it.
Which would be an EO counter the constitution and obviously not durable itself. In 4 years the next DOJ can just enforce the law on the books with 4 years of evidence of companies openly breaking it. It'd be a slam dunk case
The Biden administration signed the thing into law. Of course they need to comply. And people are acting as if somehow TikTok decided to self-ban and have now un-banned. No, it's only those with the app already installed that are able to continue to use it. It's still blocked on the app stores, and will presumably stay that way until tomorrow.
If I want to run what someone else has determined as "malware" on my computer, as far as I'm concerned, I should have the absolute right to do it. Same for spyware. Why? Because I don't want the government to make the determination for what is right or wrong for me on my own property. If the US government wants to block apps on their property, then they can go ahead and do that. But the moment it extends to my own property, it's quite ridiculous to think people are going to bend over backwards and comply with what's good for you. Especially in the context of some vague national security threat, why am I supposed to be subversive to the CIA?
How can you complain about the CCP banning foreign social media and censoring when you have your own government willing to do the same thing -- in the name of Protecting the Democracy?
It's not about privacy or data or whatever the facade is. The crime that we are committing is none other than allowing ourselves to be fed information that could threaten the United States. So, therefore, even according to the SCOTUS, if Congress plasters the magical words "national security" in their laws, then the Constitution takes a backseat and we too can be like China/Russia/Iran. Will we start banning VPNs next--which circumvent our new found love for censorship? I'd not be surprised.
Ha, is that uniparty vote supposed to be something meaningful? If the government had true concerns, they could 1) be aired to the public and 2) other senators like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul would not be speaking against the ban.
People can change their views and minds. It's only a problem when you lie and pretend you didn't. Pres Biden signed the law and could suspend it now if he wanted, but he chose not to do it as it'd be contradictory to his own signing. And of course soon-to-be President Trump will get the credit for reverting it. Nobody cares about the details beyond those invested into politik.
It's meaningful because it's one of the few things congress could actually pass. You can count on one hand the number of bills that passed this year with that kind of support that wasn't something like a budget bill.
Yes, occam's razor would suggest the government randomly decided exactly now was the time to start working in our best interests, and also those interests are super secret and have absolutely nothing to do with recent geopolitical happenings nor anything to do with the stated beliefs of the politicians driving the government.
This is take is so naive. Tiktok is the equivalent of CBS, NBC, FOX and ABC all being owned by the US's largest threat/enemy's government.
Chinese nationals are banned from even accessing TikTok within China in addition to the Chinese government not allowing America media apps to compete their market.
There isnt an argument in the world that this app isnt bad for US interests and the only reason this is emotional at all for people is that it took too long for the government to act.
Not talked about beyond heat is maintenance. When things fail, who are you going to send up to fix things? Is it never going to fail, or are they planning to throw away big components or are there going to need to be servicing missions?
Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.
If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders).
If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender").
I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
> If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders).
It was a secret order from one justice of the Supreme Court, not an official order or decision from the whole of the Supreme Court. It came with an order to maintain secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, which tells you all you need to know about its legality and ethics. Anyways, X’s appeals were not heard by the same supreme court, and that’s probably in part because the other justices are also intimidated by the aggression and power grab by the authoritarians in the regime - namely de Moraes and Lula himself.
If a government commits atrocities at the highest level in secret, should no one refuse or speak up? Of course not - it’s by airing these out in public that it can even be challenged, if there is corruption or authoritarianism. You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
> Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries. Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied. It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
> This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries.
It's relevant, because it shows that Twitter/Musk has no problem engaging in state-mandated censorship, as long as it the mandate comes under the form of a judicial order.
The fact that Twitter/Musk also has no problem engaging in non-state-mandated censorship (e.g., banning of arbitrary words that displease Musk), further reinforces the notion that the refusal has nothing to do with "not wanting to cave to [censorship] demands".
> Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied.
According to article 19 of the Constitution of India (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/), "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression".
> It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
According to what? Constitutional law (the same way censorship is also illegal under Indian Constitutional law)?
If the supreme court justice is "rogue", there are specific mechanisms in the Brazilian political system to boot him out of the TSF.
> You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
Unless the dictatorship changes the constitution (or some other laws) to make censorship legal, right? Otherwise, it's ok, according to your logic, since Musk/Twitter is ok with censorship, as long as (they consider) it is legal.
> If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts
In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?
Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.
Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard?
If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.
> Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.
These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
> both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil
That's still unreasonable.
Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.
> These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed).
Sure, but we are not discussing the first amendment, or US law in general. As you must be aware, protection of freedom of expression rights are different in different jurisdictions.
> Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
I would not be so sure. For example, it is not legal to display a swastika in Germany (even though Germany is usually considered a democratic rule-of-law country), even though it might be legal to do so in the US.
> That's still unreasonable.
Just stating this (without any further argumentation) doesn't make it so. My only point is that, apparently, there is legal precedence for such kinds of things (i.e., banning a certain social network when it refuses to appoint a legal representative in Brazil).
> Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
I'm not dodging anything... that is a different issue, that we can further discuss, if you want to have a discussion in good faith. Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts, though.
> Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people [...].
Ad hominem argumentation is not the best approach to argumentation, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion in good faith.
I'm not sure what do you mean by that. How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent? It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
> Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made
I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning. Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
> without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts
The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it. However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
I mean that "trying to argue based on (your perception of) the person you are talking to, rather than what is being discussed, is a bad argumentation strategy".
> How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent?
Even if it is (which you surely haven't demonstrated), in what way does that imply that I (or anyone else) feel "appeal towards authoritarianism"? Stick to discussing the subject, instead of discussing the people you are talking to, if you want to be taken seriously.
> It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
If they are legally, morally and ethically justifiable (at least sometimes), then it's not really "authoritarianism": it's just "rule-of-law".
> I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning.
No. The only time you mentioned it (in a response to me) was when I called you out. If you disagree, please post the supposed previous comment you made (in response to me) where you bring up the VPN ban issue.
> Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
From what I understand, the only thing that was banned was the use of circumvention technologies for the purpose of accessing Twitter (which seems legitimate if his previous ruling is to be effectively enforced). From what I understand, the blanket ban of VPN technologies (which does not seem legitimate to me) has been reversed.
> The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it.
The way to address it is to accept that US laws (and US standards of free speech) do not apply to this case, since it is outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, to accept that, if a company wants to operate in a certain country, it kind of has to abide by its laws and regulations (regardless of whether they are legitimate or not).
> However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
Obviously not, but the fact remains: if you want to operate in USSR, Russia, Venezuela, China, Hungary, or wherever, you need to comply with local regulations and laws. Or, of course, you can choose not to, but then it is quite likely that local authorities will do whatever they can to prevent your company from operating in their country.
Musk/Twitter has no problem complying with Turkish and Indian court requests and laws, even when it involves censorship. Yet, it can't seem to do the same when it comes to Brazilian court requests and laws. Strange...
I’ve mentioned the HN guidelines to you before, as this type of aggression is not ideal for this space. I understand you are very invested in this story - many people are, myself included. But this type of comment is not appropriate for Hacker News.
> The court will judge the matter collectively in due time in accordance with Brazilian due process, but judges have the power to decide matters immediately when needed before waiting for the court.
I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?
I do think though that you aren’t quite responding to the point the GP comment made: First, X has nowhere to appeal to because the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals so far, which is something X has stated publicly. And of course, the person issuing these secret censorship orders is a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, so there is also the conflict of interest. There may be no way to eliminate conflict of interest at this highest level court since other justices may feel intimidated by Alexandre de Moraes’s power, or they may simply be on his side as professional friends.
> Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal.
Second, the GP comment made the point that the judiciary was functioning as the executive and legislative branches. They are correct about that, since no new legislation was passed to give Alexandre de Moraes this power. He effectively gave himself this power from the electoral court he was president of, by proposing to the court that he be granted these unilateral powers. That happened in 2022, and was flagged by journalists and legal experts as a threat to democracy at the time.
> I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?
These aren't "secret censorship orders". They are a matter of public record.
Also they are perfectly legal. Brazil has a modern "Internet Law" which in its Section III, Article 19 states:
"Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the provider of internet applications can only be subject to civil liability for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after an specific court order, it does not take any steps to, within the framework of their service and within the time stated in the order, make unavailable the content that was identified as being unlawful, unless otherwise provided by law."
There is much more story that you’re either uninformed about or willfully ignoring. The correct move was to remove people from harms way for decisions they have no control over, hence their staff exit from the country.
The threats were themselves due to failing to follow a court order.
I'm not qualified to tell if the judge giving them is a partisan hack or not, just like I can't make that distinction with the judges that Musk appears to shop for in the US with what others describe as SLAPP lawsuits.
But obeying a judge isn't optional in either case.
There are various accounts on Twitter which were being investigated etc. for criminal misconduct, Twitter was given a court order to block those accounts. I have no idea if that order was itself justified (IANAL and I don't speak Brazilian) but the orders were given by someone with authority to give them.
Twitter refused the order, which means that Twitter is interfering with the legal process in Brazil. This sounds like "contempt of court" to me, which is a thing which results in a judge sending people to prison — no idea what it is in Brazil, but IIRC the maximum penalty in my country of birth is 2 years' imprisonment.
Brazil's legal system requires companies like Twitter to have an office in the country in order to receive such orders, which I think means it's literally her job to make those orders happen. Regardless, by closing the office Twitter was directly violating Brazilian law.
As companies cannot themselves be imprisoned, I do not see what alternative there would be than directing obligations onto a specific human. Buck has to stop somewhere, and while I know a lot of people who would celebrate if this judge decided that the correct somewhere was "international arrest warrant/request extradition of Elon Musk personally", I suspect this judge would have to go through a few more checkboxes before that doesn't get "major diplomatic incident" written all over it.
(Perhaps less of an incident if it's concurrent with the EU saying "We're issuing Twitter with a 6% fine on their global annual turnover for non-compliance with the Digital Services Act", which seems to be another battle Musk is Leeroy-Jenkins-ing himself into).
I can't think of any country I'd consider having a strong rule of law that would start arresting employees for the actions of their companies that they themselves have no say in.
Effectively, the judge makes it impossible for X to defend itself in court because he'll just have anyone arrested who tries. That's not something you'll find in the developed world these days.
> Effectively, the judge makes it impossible for X to defend itself in court because he'll just have anyone arrested who tries.
No, on two counts.
First, Twitter is free to seek out a lawyer to represent them in court. Most people hire lawyers for contract work rather than as a permanent employee, so this remains possible even with no assets within Brazil.
Second, there was nothing to be defended until they refused to comply with the lawfully given order within the required deadline.
That they chose to fire their staff member and close the office in order to prevent compliance with the lawfully given order, was an actual offence in its own right. To my limited understanding, it is also an offence in its own right to refuse a lawfully given court order. But in both cases, Twitter was not being punished until they actually broke the law.
Courts in the UK and the USA may issue an injunction, both to prohibit and/or to compel an action, and this may bind on people not directly before the court:
Compare and contrast Twitter in Brazil with Lavabit in the USA: Lavabit was ordered to provide certain information in secret (with an injunction to not talk about it); they protested, they first provided that information in an obtuse form that was considered contempt, they provided it in a form which was acceptable, then they closed their business in response and took further legal action in response to what they — and, to be clear, I — consider to have been a manner incompatible with the public view of American Democracy:
"""Levison said that he could be arrested for closing the site instead of releasing the information, and it was reported that the federal prosecutor's office had sent Levison's lawyer an email to that effect."""
and
"""Levison wrote that after being contacted by the FBI, he was subpoenaed to appear in federal court, and was forced to appear without legal representation because it was served on such short notice; in addition, as a third party, he had no right to representation, and was not allowed to ask anyone who was not an attorney to help find him one. He also wrote that in addition to being denied a hearing about the warrant to obtain Lavabit's user information, he was held in contempt of court. The appellate court denied his appeal due to no objection, however, he wrote that because there had been no hearing, no objection could have been raised. His contempt of court charge was also upheld on the ground that it was not disputed; similarly, he was unable to dispute the charge because there had been no hearing to do it in."""
Musk and his people officially don’t have any control over political decisions taken in any country, be it Brazil, Germany, or even home in the US. And they shouldn’t but by virtue of a ton of money thrown towards politicians, and general US global influence, many times this happens.
So your explanation should be rewritten as “remove people from the way of legal consequences from breaking local laws they/Musk can’t control (buy) in their favor”.
It sounds like the same thing but it’s the difference between fleeing persecution and fleeing prosecution.
