andrenth

8 ms·

1.
Brazil's top labor inspector fired for adding China's BYD to 'dirty list'(reuters.com)
3 points by andrenth 5mo ago|0 comments
2.
Brazil's Supreme Court Illegally Used Social Media Posts to Frame Protesters(public.news)
5 points by andrenth 1y ago|2 comments
3.
by andrenth 1y ago
“Brazilian Supreme Court suddenly deems 11-year-old law unconstitutional after their own corruption is exposed on social media”
4.
by andrenth 2y ago
Flagged
5.
Existing Postliberalism(firstthings.com)
2 points by andrenth 2y ago|0 comments
6.
by andrenth 2y ago
I guess if it's not metaphysics then it's physics.
7.
by andrenth 2y ago
Users obtained via state censorship should be a reason for shame, not celebration.
8.
by andrenth 2y ago
Of all the ridiculous dictator bootlicker replies in this thread, this one takes the prize. Brazil's population is ~215 million. Let me call a judge to report your misinformation.
9.
by andrenth 2y ago
This is the slippery slope fallacy fallacy.
10.
by andrenth 2y ago
US median household income increased after the 2017 corporate tax cuts. https://fee.org/articles/us-household-incomes-increased-more...
11.
The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism(nature.com)
10 points by andrenth 2y ago|2 comments
12.
by andrenth 2y ago
Is someone working on a Nomad fork?
13.
Brazil's Supreme Court granted itself unprecedented powers(twitter.com)
2 points by andrenth 2y ago|2 comments
14.
by andrenth 2y ago
> It IS disclosed for the involved and accused parties. Nope, defense attorneys have not had access to case files in many instances. > Hate speech, spread disinformation about elections, irregular political propaganda, threatening oth
15.
by andrenth 2y ago
> Ok, now you need to prove that the conditions are not being met. As the prosecutors in each case will present the proofs for each case when the inquiry becomes a criminal case. If a crime was committed, why wasn't it disclosed? Ri
16.
by andrenth 2y ago
> Not censorship. Brazilian law allows you to remove content in case of criminal investigation, threatenings, unbased defamation.... The law allows that under certain conditions, yes. Are these conditions being met? No. It’s being used a
17.
by andrenth 2y ago
Once again you don't address the points in my previous points and reply with something completely different. > All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered,
18.
Megafires are spreading in the Amazon – and they are here to stay(news.mongabay.com)
2 points by andrenth 2y ago|0 comments
19.
by andrenth 2y ago
Please cite one example of illegal content and the law that makes it illegal.
20.
by andrenth 2y ago
> As already mentioned, the first item is false. It's not false and it was only made possible by a corruption of the written words in the Supreme Court regiment AND by ignoring the 1988 constitution. > The second is also false: i
21.
by andrenth 2y ago
There are at least 8 reasons it is illegal. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
22.
by andrenth 2y ago
Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.
23.
by andrenth 2y ago
The constitution doesn’t say “everyone is free” though. But it does say censorship is forbidden, without qualifiers.
24.
by andrenth 2y ago
Yeah right. Appeal to the same court that opened the illegal inquiry. Good luck indeed. What a vibrant democracy!
25.
by andrenth 2y ago
I think putting it that way could lead someone to believe a country’s population agrees with the actions of the managerial elite. But yes, I agree with the essence of the idea, though I think it’s clearer to say they own or run the country.
26.
by andrenth 2y ago
> The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever
27.
by andrenth 2y ago
> What the Brazilian courts are doing is persecuting the people who tried to do the equivalent of what those MAGA idiots did on January 6th. The persecution started well before that, in 2019, with the opening of the illegal inquiry 4781.
28.
by andrenth 2y ago
This is not completely factual. As was demonstrated by Twitter Files Brazil, censorship requests by the judiciary were happening well before Elon bought Twitter.
29.
by andrenth 2y ago
“Countries” do not want censorship. Corrupt bureaucrats in power do.
30.
by andrenth 2y ago
The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it. Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the action

More ›