Something for lawyers to argue after Meta complies with the law, then they can try to argue the law is invalid or misapplied.

But this law may be impossible to comply, without basically shutting down Facebook. The complaints include that Bolsonaro is first in politician search results (someone has to be first), and that asking Meta’s LLM for a random number gives Bolsonaro’s ballot number before Lula’s.

> But this law may be impossible to comply

How come? If it is an algorithm, change the algorithm. Newsfeed used to be based on timestamp. Then, lots of weights and statistical analysis went into it to show you what the algorithm thinks will drive most engagement.

What if the algorithms “newest” or “most upvoted” still promote Bolsonaro, because his supporters outnumber opposition? Facebook’s algorithm is more complicated, but that may be the core reason it favors him.

Or they could explicitly promote Lula, but that would be biased towards him…

It hasn't been that simple since Google early days, after Altavista.

Content ranking algorithms, specially on social networks, are very complex and usually engineered towards generating engagement.

And it seems to work as intended given the amount of engagement is post.

Shutting down Facebook would be excellent, but it would be nice to have better specific justification, which would not apply to almost any site (oh no, what if this comment section has more Bolsonaro comments than Lula ones?)

The justification is that a Brazilian court found it was operating in violation of the laws of Brazil. Thankfully, the justifications don't have to convince you or anyone else on HN. They only have to convince the court.

For reference, Musk tried a similar thing a few years ago, resulting in Twitter being blocked in Brazil, it becoming a punishable crime to use Twitter in Brazil (you could still get there with a VPN but if you were anyone important someone would call the police on you, so they didn't) and Elon complied within days.

side by side search results would solve a lot of problems it seems.

Let's take your argument for a moment and apply it to a different industry and see if it makes sense.

In this universe, it's perfectly identical to our current universe other than Meta being a company that makes lawnmowers. They're not the only company that makes lawnmowers, but they're popular.

It turns out though that meta has been making lawnmowers illegally unsafe, but meta's business model that let them outcompete everyone else was cutting corners on safety. If meta made their lawnmowers comply with the legal requirement for safety it'd be an existential threat to them.

Now, I ask you, should Meta be allowed to continue selling illegally unsafe lawnmowers?

A more accurate analogy is: Meta’s lawnmowers are “illegally unsafe” because they statistically get stuck less on Bolsonaro supporters’ grass, which just so happens to statistically have less weeds. It’s a stupid law that could be applied to any lawnmower Brazil’s court selectively enforced it on, so no, it should not apply.

Your "which just so happens to" is doing a lot of carrying, when you should also be asking "who measured the amount of weeds and how" and also "do weeds impact the likelihood of a lawnmower getting stuck". Answer those questions (and some others) and you'd have the transparency that we'd need to decide if that's actually the cause.

We could just ignore Trump's pardons as inherently corrupt.

Punish everyone, you may be unjust but at least you'll be thorough.

I googled "Mesa Arizona redlining" and the AI results were just a summary of this article but the salient point was

>For much of the 20th century, minorities were barred from buying property in most parts of Mesa

https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/mesa-protecting-histo...

That describes most nations or polities going back to prehistory. It's unfortunately not the part of America's power projection that is unique.

You mean state, not nation.

Anyway the part that makes the us unique is pretending to be ethical, which makes a farce of the entire concept of ethics. Admitting the entire concept of america is based on justification via violence would be a massive step forward

Why do you think the US and it's empire pretending to have the moral high ground is "unique"?

Great Britain at the height of her power was insistent that they were "Civilizing" people they oppressed, and Rome did much the same.

Yes the farce is transparent

AI offers an attractive "diffusion of responsibility" to operators allowing them to point to AI as the culprit of the heinous acts not the people who profit from the AI, incidentally.

My AI agent decided with the Ticketmaster agent that since I couldn't get the tickets to the show I really wanted, I'd instead attend a show they haven't sold very many tickets for as it's a bit of a drive. I forgot to charge my AI agent's loyalty this week and it fell below the threshold of trustworthiness so it struck this awful deal. It's stipulated that I attend or I risk even further matrix degradation of my agent in the agentweb. I even spent all last week providing my AI agent with RealTestimonials about various consumer products for the streams but apparently they want you to manually charge it every week and you have to have a full package of tokens, you can't partially charge your agent even just to break a threshold on its behavior matrix.

It's good to read widely, to understand what is poor quality and what strums the strings of the soul. Rejoice in this human communion

I know my library system at least won't be purchasing AI books. They have a pretty rigorous acquisition process for books and other media thanks to the "concern groups" who sprang up complaining about themes and content they didn't like in libraries. We did have in my state a rural school district figured out recently that their Texas-based reading and instructional materials are AI-slop but they at least figured it out before the school year began. It was unclear how these materials were approved but it apparently bypassed normal curricula approval.

For many people's experience of music Spotify is probably alright. I don't use it as it doesn't appeal to me. I was a vinyl dj and then cds when those came along.

I get excellent suggestions from Youtube on old tracks after spending 20+ years liking music tracks on there. I go on there and get suggestions for a youtube video with 4 likes posted five hours ago for a track released 15-25 years ago and they're almost always good if not great music. I still go on bandcamp and soundcloud and other places and buy tracks, eps, full albums in mp3s and flac and wavs and download them for djing purposes. As far as I'm concerned I'm still crate digging whether it's in an actual crate of records and cds or sans-Spotify. New music is not hard to find and if you like something you can easily search other releases by the artist or label or even partial producers. People have it better than they know in 2026 but it takes some involvement too.