We don't have elected judges so that might help. Our judges need to be approved in a incredible hard Civil service entrance examination.
Also, they have several constitutional protections that protect them from political or public subordination as they have jobs for life, they can't be moved to another city without their consent, etc.
How is that related to what is happening here? To fine a company for not getting that a company can't provide data it does not have is incompetence, not an act of sovereignty.
To fine a company (and some variants, like Google) in a strike of years and receive the same answer always is indeed an act against brazillian sovereignty.
And now Brazil is going to find out how little the rest of the internet cares about their sovereignty claims in this particular case. This is pure win for Whatsapp; Brazilian revenue is less for FB/WA than in most countries given the lingering zombie corpse of Orkut, so it does not cost as much to tell the Brazilian courts to piss off and gain street cred in markets they actually do care about.
Orkut is a non-factor in Brazil currently and has been for years now.
Facebook and whatsapp is used by basically everyone who has internet access [1][2]
Edit: Of course number of users does not imply in revenue, but the Facebook office in Brazil is also a gateway to other Latin American countries. So I would argue that the country might not be as unimportant as you seem to imply.
As a software Engineer and tech founder (and Brazillian), I say sorry for all the brainless sh*t people from silicon valley think is right to do to other countries systems, laws and regulations to get more rich and make you all more poor.
I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
The next step is understanding, for which there are plenty of resources on the web as a start. I believe that living in another country for at least a year is helpful. Note that it is very easy to fall into the trap of insulating oneself from the local culture by simply trying to copy over one's main country of residence. I have seen it happen all too often with many NRI's in India.
Then comes the really hard part, which is creating solutions based on such understanding.
>> I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
Good luck with this one.
This is how the US has become so polarized and there is no end in sight. Nobody wants to admit there's a problem and take responsibility. It's always someone else's problem and how come they can see/understand/comprehend it??
- too much political correctness
- too much worrying about upsetting someone's feelings
- too much technology
- Too much selfishness
collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Big money flowing straight to uncle sam's pocket. The worst part of it is that FB/WPP uses the same technology to maintain an huge army of brainless evangelists of their (and us govt) interests, making FB users think they get more from using facebook than would receive in a local social network. But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.
Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed?
Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government?
You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
For you and for a lot of people, rglullis. This is the mainstream West media thinking. But I missed your arguments proving that WeChat could be worse to China than is FB to Brazil.
Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves.
Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
> Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves.
Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it?
> Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
You still haven't showed any convincing argument why Facebook "hurts freedom", at least systemically.
The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests".
> "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better."
That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
> That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
I don't have to show anything, dude, are you insane? Do you have any point proving that WeChat, a national player, is not better for China than Facebook? If so, tell me why because this is the beginning of the discussion.
You are the one claiming that WeChat is better. You are the one that claimed that Facebook "made you poorer". So, yes, you are the one that made extraordinary claims, you are the one that needs to bring extraordinary proof.
Stop with the smokescreen and mirrors, and start actually defending your principles.
Really? All I am asking is for you to show any kind of credible data to support your ridiculous claims, and this is all you can come up with?
You really are a waste of my time. Maybe I am crazy for expecting any kind of decent discussion about anything political with Brazilians on the Internet.
With this attitude, I think you are crazy in any discussion. What you are asking is proof that Shenzhen and Beijing are better for China than Silicon Valley, and this is stupidity. You're not insane, you're dumb as hell, just like all of brazilians liberaloides and bolsomitos. And it makes me sad to see you guys even here in HN. The Brazilians Bro's!
First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am not discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to engage in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit.
Second,
> What you are asking is proof that Shenzhen and Beijing are better for China than Silicon Valley...
You are moving the goal posts. I am not asking for any kind of "proof" related to Chinese cities vs Silicon Valley.
I will be very explicit:
- You made a claim that WeChat (the company/product/service) is better for a Chinese than Facebook is for "anyone else in the global market", e.g, countries were Facebook can operate.
- I am asking for a argument for your claim.
- So far, you have done all but providing any reasonable idea that could support your claim.
- In another part of the thread you started with the premises of protectionism and lacked any kind of conclusion, and others already tried to show how that is flawed.
So, let me try once again. Please, explain why is it better, and how does WeChat benefit "most if not all" Chinese people? How does an ordinary Chinese citizen benefits more from a Chinese-only, Government-controlled social network, and what is there that Facebook couldn't offer as well in a scenario where the market could be open?
Third, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the users". I am trying to clarify is how you would argue that WeChat, by virtue of being closed and protected by the Chinese Government, can be better than the other services.
Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an intellectually honest conversation?
Man, you're completely insane, and I'm going to answer you for the last time only to keep at least a minimum of coherence in this "discussion" if someone reads it in the future.
> First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am not discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to engage in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit.
You were the one that jumped into the discussion name-calling, so I'll agree with you in letting it go.
> - I am asking for a argument for your claim.
Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses² in high tech jobs. Facebook don't here 1/10 of it in any of the countries they operate besides US. This is one company, so you have indirectly another hundreds of thousands of jobs, in education, in infrastructure, in services to attend this well-paid people. This is my "one argument" for the claim. Please, if you're going to dismiss it, do it properly, with good argument and references.
> hird, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the users"
I never made these claims and I can only repeat myself saying that you are retard.
> Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an intellectually honest conversation?
Do you have real understandings of economics and politics? Or you are more or less aligned with the average?
Do you understand the implications of making 1 REAL worth 1 DOLLAR? And how FHC made it artificially, and just after que got reelected, he undervaluated our currency to 4/1², making all of our debts in dollar (most of it, of course haha) explode! Are you saying serious that you understand what happened that time?
You say you will drop the name-calling after saying again that I am insane, and in another paragraph calls me "retard". Are you sure you willing to "let it go" or are you keep taking cheap jabs with the name calling?
Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we?
> I never made these claims (about protectionism and WeChat) and Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my one argument
You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country.
We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My question is "why is WeChat better for the users compared to Facebook? What makes WeChat better due to being closed and protected by the government?
You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the users that live in that country. Do you see the difference?
--
Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it out.
I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just confusion, but let me point a few examples:
- The article you linked says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you wrote.
- The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed to keep the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would increase and we might have been able to keep a better trade balance.
The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles.
To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and more about things that are not related to what was originally asked.
And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.
Hahaha. Man! Read your stuff again, and read what I said. Try to find a way to conciliate both. It is impossible! You even put things that didn't show up there, here, like $4.50. Why you took it so personal? Stop writing all these nonsense posing as if you were writing anything useful. You just take everything and say: "isn't this that I'm asking". Guess what? Nobody cares for what you are asking. Actually, you can't even say it, I think. And I didn't say I wouldn't call you names, you're completely insane, retard, this discussion has no logic and I REALLY don't understand why you made it so deep and long, talking about so many different things like a retard in all of that. To point one of the most retard arguments: did the USD raise only to R$1.40?
"Para manter este sistema funcionando por mais tempo foi necessário injetar algumas dezenas de bilhões de dólares na manutenção do câmbio semi-fixo e das altas taxas de juros. Parte destes recursos vieram do aumento da dívida externa, que no período 1994-2000 saltou de US$ 120 bilhões para US$ 250 bilhões [3] . Outra parte veio dos processos de privatização das empresas estatais, que resultou na desnacionalização de empresas e serviços. Muitos economistas criticavam a manutenção de um câmbio valorizado por tanto tempo, já que a estabilização da inflação havia sido alcançada já em 1995."
Eu já sei que você é um retardado, mas se você acha que se endividar, manter o dolar aritificialmente a 1 real (jogando o preço dos produtos estrangeiros lá embaixo, ou seja: subsdiando a importação) é austeridade, não há nada que ninguém possa dizer pra você, rs.
> You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country.
Of course is this I'm saying our freaking retard!!! Oh my god, in which world do you live? You really think that the only economic theory that exists is this stupid bullshit people call "liberalism"? Von mises? Oh, boy...
I'm not sure if a total hegemony is preferable, even if it were incredibly efficient at doing what it was meant to do. Government is one of the few human factors capable of resisting a multinational corporation. I am somewhat sympathetic to their objectives, and I can't blame them for blocking foreign competition if they feel it is in the social interest.
States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security.
Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook.
Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.
> collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry.
Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past.
> Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry.
Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
> This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries
And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet.
Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go?
I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
> I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
Why do you believe that your alleged personal experience is a good economy theory?
Let's first put some names in your "explanations". The "reserva de mercado" was a economic strategy used by the Militares in the Dictactorship time. So of course, this was not a good strategy, mainly because it was focused on industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and elite, not in things like food and familiar agriculture. After the end of the military dictatorship, anoter right-wing party took power, beginning with Fernando Collor and finishing with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, they lowered all taxes, spent ALL our reserves buying US goodies and the last one, FHC, requested 3 IMF bailouts. Lefting all national industry broken. This only started to change in recent times.
But now explain to me how the "end of protectionism" (that never protected brazilians, only the elite) and the sequential neoliberalism made Brazil a great country?
You have to decide which side of the argument you want to be on: just on another thread you are actually defending the protectionist Chinese policies which, guess what?, are exactly about "protecting the industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and the elite".
Also, you are factually wrong about taxes during Collor and FHC. Precisely because of the austerity policies (which were "imposed" by the IMF), the effective tax burden went from ~25% to ~36% of the GDP.
Would you like to have an honest conversation, opening yourself to new ideas, striving to teaching and learning? Or are you just trying to "win" an online argument? If it is the former, please let me know, so I can find something more useful to do with my time.
No matter the thread, you keep evading responding to the most fundamental of the questions. Stop with the bullshitting, and take it like a man: you are wrong about the basics, so it would mean a lot if you could just acknowledge that this PT-fed narrative is bad revisionism.
Don't apologize. The judiciary and the federal police are the only institutions we have that kind of work. I agree judges have usually been wrong on this subject, but not because "it's Whatsapp" - Whatsapp shouldn't be treated a special entity.
Do you realise those companies regularly cooperate with USA police in similar cases? Why should you be ashamed of your country acting as the sovereign nation it is?
I might as well be that, NSA is so unethical that it will be always polemic and a pain for any US company. In the end apart from trillions of cost it might as well have the same economic impact on top of that.
1) The investigation that led to these fines (and now to freezing Facebook's funds) begun in January 2015, way before widespread encryption was implemented in Whatsapp. Whatsapp received several requests to cooperate from the first month, apparently without reply. So the argument that E2E encryption is the reason why they do not cooperate doesn't really hold. [1]
2) On the other hand, our judges and the police have flirted with the ridiculous notion that Whatsapp should "disable encryption for some users" or "find a technological solution to get around encryption" (meaning: a backdoor). [2] While this is obviously possible, it is also clearly unethical and a judge shouldn't punish the company over this possibility without there being a large discussion - possibly laws - on the subject.
People have been quick to blame the judges because of extreme court actions, but the truth is Whatsapp is no saint; some of these investigations could hit high profile criminals and obviously getting to their communications would have been a lot of help to the police, and this was possible at some point. It isn't possible anymore, so I think what we're seeing now is a backlash from those early requests.
behind a highly criminal drug cartel operation, there is a CIA connection... most likely the company is being forced to cover it up to protect criminals in high places... but that is just my conspiracy theory...
But its not impossible. If you make decryption impossible, the law can require you to not make it so. If you're a commercial entity, and you don't follow the law, you can be dissolved.
I do not disagree that encryption will always exist.
I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates.
People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it.
The question is whether a media sharing service that operates in a country with no IP laws is required to either obey laws of countries that do or take reasonable measures to prevent citizens of such countries from accessing the service.
I respect your opinion my friend, you are not wrong, you are on your way.
Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion.
Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
The important question is whether a country has jurisdiction over services rendered remotely. Is every website accessed by a Brazilian person required to follow Brazilian law?
If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?
74 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadAlso, they have several constitutional protections that protect them from political or public subordination as they have jobs for life, they can't be moved to another city without their consent, etc.
Do you want them to act like Brazil is the USA's lackay (and end up like Mexico)?
Facebook and whatsapp is used by basically everyone who has internet access [1][2]
Edit: Of course number of users does not imply in revenue, but the Facebook office in Brazil is also a gateway to other Latin American countries. So I would argue that the country might not be as unimportant as you seem to imply.
[1]http://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-b...
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/03/whatsapp-sh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut
+ they failed to even reply.
I hope they go much further if they continue to not obey other countries' laws.
I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
The next step is understanding, for which there are plenty of resources on the web as a start. I believe that living in another country for at least a year is helpful. Note that it is very easy to fall into the trap of insulating oneself from the local culture by simply trying to copy over one's main country of residence. I have seen it happen all too often with many NRI's in India.
Then comes the really hard part, which is creating solutions based on such understanding.
Good luck with this one.
This is how the US has become so polarized and there is no end in sight. Nobody wants to admit there's a problem and take responsibility. It's always someone else's problem and how come they can see/understand/comprehend it??
- too much political correctness - too much worrying about upsetting someone's feelings - too much technology - Too much selfishness
It's incredibly depressing.
Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are blocked with the help of the government.
Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed?
Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government?
You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it?
> Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests".
> "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better."
That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
I don't have to show anything, dude, are you insane? Do you have any point proving that WeChat, a national player, is not better for China than Facebook? If so, tell me why because this is the beginning of the discussion.
Stop with the smokescreen and mirrors, and start actually defending your principles.
You really are a waste of my time. Maybe I am crazy for expecting any kind of decent discussion about anything political with Brazilians on the Internet.
Second,
> What you are asking is proof that Shenzhen and Beijing are better for China than Silicon Valley...
You are moving the goal posts. I am not asking for any kind of "proof" related to Chinese cities vs Silicon Valley.
I will be very explicit:
- You made a claim that WeChat (the company/product/service) is better for a Chinese than Facebook is for "anyone else in the global market", e.g, countries were Facebook can operate.
- I am asking for a argument for your claim.
- So far, you have done all but providing any reasonable idea that could support your claim.
- In another part of the thread you started with the premises of protectionism and lacked any kind of conclusion, and others already tried to show how that is flawed.
So, let me try once again. Please, explain why is it better, and how does WeChat benefit "most if not all" Chinese people? How does an ordinary Chinese citizen benefits more from a Chinese-only, Government-controlled social network, and what is there that Facebook couldn't offer as well in a scenario where the market could be open?
Third, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the users". I am trying to clarify is how you would argue that WeChat, by virtue of being closed and protected by the Chinese Government, can be better than the other services.
Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an intellectually honest conversation?
> First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am not discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to engage in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit.
You were the one that jumped into the discussion name-calling, so I'll agree with you in letting it go.
> - I am asking for a argument for your claim.
Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses² in high tech jobs. Facebook don't here 1/10 of it in any of the countries they operate besides US. This is one company, so you have indirectly another hundreds of thousands of jobs, in education, in infrastructure, in services to attend this well-paid people. This is my "one argument" for the claim. Please, if you're going to dismiss it, do it properly, with good argument and references.
> hird, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the users"
I never made these claims and I can only repeat myself saying that you are retard.
> Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an intellectually honest conversation?
Do you have real understandings of economics and politics? Or you are more or less aligned with the average? Do you understand the implications of making 1 REAL worth 1 DOLLAR? And how FHC made it artificially, and just after que got reelected, he undervaluated our currency to 4/1², making all of our debts in dollar (most of it, of course haha) explode! Are you saying serious that you understand what happened that time?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent
2. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/business/international-bus...
Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we?
> I never made these claims (about protectionism and WeChat) and Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my one argument
You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country.
We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My question is "why is WeChat better for the users compared to Facebook? What makes WeChat better due to being closed and protected by the government?
You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the users that live in that country. Do you see the difference?
--
Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it out.
I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just confusion, but let me point a few examples:
- The article you linked says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you wrote.
- The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed to keep the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would increase and we might have been able to keep a better trade balance.
The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles.
- You still haven't retracted yourself in regards with the tax rate during FHC years. If you don't believe me, I will even give you a very pro-left source (http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-imposto...) to check it out.
--
To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and more about things that are not related to what was originally asked.
And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.
Vou postar isso aqui em portugues, que te explica direitinho a crise do real e como ela é o oposto dessa porcaria que você tentou escrever em ingles: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desvaloriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_re...
"Para manter este sistema funcionando por mais tempo foi necessário injetar algumas dezenas de bilhões de dólares na manutenção do câmbio semi-fixo e das altas taxas de juros. Parte destes recursos vieram do aumento da dívida externa, que no período 1994-2000 saltou de US$ 120 bilhões para US$ 250 bilhões [3] . Outra parte veio dos processos de privatização das empresas estatais, que resultou na desnacionalização de empresas e serviços. Muitos economistas criticavam a manutenção de um câmbio valorizado por tanto tempo, já que a estabilização da inflação havia sido alcançada já em 1995."
Eu já sei que você é um retardado, mas se você acha que se endividar, manter o dolar aritificialmente a 1 real (jogando o preço dos produtos estrangeiros lá embaixo, ou seja: subsdiando a importação) é austeridade, não há nada que ninguém possa dizer pra você, rs.
Of course is this I'm saying our freaking retard!!! Oh my god, in which world do you live? You really think that the only economic theory that exists is this stupid bullshit people call "liberalism"? Von mises? Oh, boy...
States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security.
Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook.
Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.
Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past.
Disclaimer: I am brazilian.
This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry.
Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet.
Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go?
I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
Why do you believe that your alleged personal experience is a good economy theory?
Let's first put some names in your "explanations". The "reserva de mercado" was a economic strategy used by the Militares in the Dictactorship time. So of course, this was not a good strategy, mainly because it was focused on industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and elite, not in things like food and familiar agriculture. After the end of the military dictatorship, anoter right-wing party took power, beginning with Fernando Collor and finishing with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, they lowered all taxes, spent ALL our reserves buying US goodies and the last one, FHC, requested 3 IMF bailouts. Lefting all national industry broken. This only started to change in recent times.
But now explain to me how the "end of protectionism" (that never protected brazilians, only the elite) and the sequential neoliberalism made Brazil a great country?
Also, you are factually wrong about taxes during Collor and FHC. Precisely because of the austerity policies (which were "imposed" by the IMF), the effective tax burden went from ~25% to ~36% of the GDP.
Would you like to have an honest conversation, opening yourself to new ideas, striving to teaching and learning? Or are you just trying to "win" an online argument? If it is the former, please let me know, so I can find something more useful to do with my time.
and it could be just a nasty attack on US corporation that cooperates with NSA?
1) The investigation that led to these fines (and now to freezing Facebook's funds) begun in January 2015, way before widespread encryption was implemented in Whatsapp. Whatsapp received several requests to cooperate from the first month, apparently without reply. So the argument that E2E encryption is the reason why they do not cooperate doesn't really hold. [1]
2) On the other hand, our judges and the police have flirted with the ridiculous notion that Whatsapp should "disable encryption for some users" or "find a technological solution to get around encryption" (meaning: a backdoor). [2] While this is obviously possible, it is also clearly unethical and a judge shouldn't punish the company over this possibility without there being a large discussion - possibly laws - on the subject.
People have been quick to blame the judges because of extreme court actions, but the truth is Whatsapp is no saint; some of these investigations could hit high profile criminals and obviously getting to their communications would have been a lot of help to the police, and this was possible at some point. It isn't possible anymore, so I think what we're seeing now is a backlash from those early requests.
[1] http://paranaportal.uol.com.br/geral/justica-de-londrina-blo...
[2] http://m.convergenciadigital.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start...
I wonder if the response would be the same if this request was coming from the US authorities.
This is XKCD 101: https://xkcd.com/538/
Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for legal purposes.
If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk.
Please, tell me that I am wrong.
I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates.
People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it.
Am I wrong?
Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion.
Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?