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.

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.

I really dislike the lack of a more anonymous way to transfer money but given how prevalent scams are here I feel like there was no better option.

Also, before PIX bank transfers required a person's full name, full CPF number, full account and branch numbers so arguably PIX is helping to improve privacy a little bit.

However the big issue is when people register their phone numbers as PIX keys because it means strangers can easily get full names from phone numbers.

They could've easily used Times New Roman like their teachers probably instructed them. /hj

Yes it's expensive but if we divide those expense across 8 billion people out becomes affordable.

In fact I would go further and just ban discrimination on sexuality and/or availability of sexual material of someone. This is specially important when it comes to employment and housing discrimination.

However, laws aren't magic bullets and even it such a law were to be 100% followed, the creation of realistic fake sexual material of someone is definitely a serious violation of privacy and intimacy and thus people who make such materials ought be punished as for the violation of such fundamental rights.

This is to say, punishment of fake nude creators should be irrespective of whether or not they caused emotional distress.

We have a long history of lack of rule of law and of local authorities getting away with some pretty despicable shit. So, the less they can interfere with elections, the better off we are.

And pulling off a major fraud scheme with our voting machines is petty damn difficult as their software is loaded and sealed months before the election and all political parties can send representatives to observe the processes and to reqd the source code.

I do however wish that the source code were fully open for anyone to read. But I'm afraid of how much this transparency will be abused by disinformation campaigns.

Electronic voting is a good idea here because it raises the "barrier to commit fraud".

Basically, back when we ran our elections on paper, there was a lot of fraud as it's pretty easy to pull off fraud schemes.

With electronic voting, the system is so complex that almost no one can pull off a fraud scheme with two major expectations: voter intimidation and voter impersonation.

Although even that last one is getting tougher as we now scan peoples' fingerprints. The poll worker can manually override the system but this will be recorded and they will be in hot waters of they override too much.

Yes, in theory non-electronic elections are more secure, but in practice it's more complicated as we are dealing with a country with a horrible history at implementing rule of law and we have a significant amount of local authoritarian leaders (e.g. drug lords) that would definitely make it near impossible to run paper elections fairly.

So computers, phones, and game consoles cannot have remote attestation but home security systems, ATMs, e-Readers, medical devices, water/electricity usage meters can do remote attestation.

There are random number books and I know one of them has a copyright registration [1].

[1]: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/7060844

Also, Brazilian treasuries. Our interest rates are ridiculously high here.

We absolutely need more oversight over big tech and we had had real violence and threats tied to online radicalisation (like all the death threats to our justices, that time Sara Winter fired fireworks at the supreme court building, and the Jan 8th riots) so something has to be done but our Congress is to slow to lead the charge so we end up having to delegate rule making powers to specialized bodies but this time everyone is afraid of how this new internet [something] board will act as it's brand new and unpredictable.

As for why Google and others are stonewalling things, the answer is a mix of money and ideology. Many of those big tech companies come from the US and their approach to freedom of speech is very very different ours so what we see as business as usual they see as an attack on free speech. On the money part, complying with the new law will be very expensive and nobody likes extra costs.