That's the problem with all these judicial orders. They think it's a flip of the switch to comply. Why don't the courts provide the money to build the services and infrastructure to comply with the order?
Orders like these are normally written out by judges that are completely oblivious to how reality works. Adding to that the fact that people with power know they tend to get things their way in Brazil, and that the government is all-powerful, I'm quite sure this guy just assumed he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen.
It's wonderful to have a succinct word for a concept like that; I wish there were such a word in English. Do you have any background information about the origins and meaning of this word?
Caneta means pen in portuguese. Canetada, although not a dictionary word, means the act of swiftly using a pen to show "who is the boss" - signing an impromptu decree or order of questionable legitimacy for example.
Portuguese, maybe especially Brazilian Portuguese, has a good number of made-up words that can be created by simply adding certain suffixes to common words. They might not be in the dictionary; that'd grow its number of words exponentially I assume. But they're widely used and understood. In this case, "-ada" is basically added to words when something is used indiscriminately, normally by hitting something or someone, or throwing it.
Whacking someone with a wooden stick ("pau") is a "paulada". Kicking a ball ("bola") on someone is a "bolada". Poking someone with a pin ("alfinete") is a "alfinetada".
Therefore, using a pen ("caneta") indiscriminately becomes a "canetada".
The same word would be used if you threw the pen at someone's head, so there's that.
Not that I am a big fan of this particular law/result, but I want to highlight the second half of your sentence:
"if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market"
That is something the HN crowd does not seem to understand/respect. Most of us enjoy the personal protection of the law yet we want to whip up a webapp and have no laws apply to us.
If you think harder you will realize that is false. The rule of law itself has value, and we can only live in a lawful society if we respect all laws and change them via established processes. Otherwise someone may decide that your favorite law is "idiotic" and you will have no recourse.
Civil disobedience does not imply impunity. You disobey the law and you face the consequences. That's how civil disobedience works. If too many people disobey the law, it eventually gets noticed.
Not only idiotic but also immoral. If you obey an immoral law you are acting in a way which strengthens that law and keeps other people under its influence. By your actions you are essentially condemning people to be affected by an immoral law - which in itself is immoral behavior.
As far as I understand, WhatsApp is not conducting any activities in Brazil.
There are people in Brazil who have downloaded the application, and those people are connecting OUT to WhatsApp, which is operating in America.
So all the Brazilian government can do, is BLOCK its own people from accessing WhatsApp through the Internet.
The question is, should the Brazilian government have the right to block websites that it doesn't want its people to be able to see?
Ultimately that's a problem for Brazilian domestic politics, and also a greater issue of human rights. After all, that's how we describe it when discussing the Great Firewall of China.
Brazil can apply whatever laws they want wherever they want. They just might not be able to enforce them and therefore non-residents might decide to ignore them. The same is true for everyone else.
