I wrote some functionality to parse DOT to feed it into the layout engine before I got everything working. It was a great way to validate more complex graphs with a DSL that is already prevalent. So for now it’s only present in the webapp.
DOT parsing isn’t part of the npm package, but I’m not totally opposed to include it! It may add 1-2Mb more to the wasm bundle.
Just so you know, I find this terribly confusing. You see the homepage with your code, then you think "oh, I'll try this editor here..." and then it turns out it's Dot? All examples are written in Dot? Why? Didn't it say "no DSLs"? Didn't it show some TypeScript in the homepage?
It can very easily make people get the wrong idea about what your project is.
Yeah I’ll admit, that isn’t clear. I used DOT to test it a while back and opened that up for folks who also wanted to mess with DOT, but that isn’t the value prop today.
You can create and render as many graphs as you like with the package offline - only the real-time sync is limited.
What's happening in Pakistan has no bearing on what's happening in Brazil. Just because "twitter is banned" in both countries doesn't mean it was banned for the same reasons or that the ban applies in the same way.
Absolutely, I understand Brazil and Pakistan are two different countries, I just wanted to share my own experiences to provide some interesting insight on how people react to bans.
In Brazil, people are apparently moving to BlueSky, but in my country, we didn't move platforms, we just to jump over the fence via VPNs.
> It's the final repercussion following repeated attempts by Musk/X to ignore demands from the Brazilian legal system which were made in accordance with Brazilian law as written by congresspeople duly elected by the Brazilian people.
The Brazilian constitution is clear, you can read it here, article 5 IX:
The actions taken by Alexandre de Moraes are certainly not in accordance with Brazilian law, since the constitution sits above everything else.
> The judge didn't say "put a local representative here or we close you down".
That is literally what happened - the disagreement with X originated with secret censorship orders. However, the order that ultimately blocked X for Brazilian users was based on the issue of having a local representative - or so they stated. X got rid of their local representative because of the threats issued by Alexandre de Moraes to fine and jail the representative and other staff, in addition to going after their personal financial assets.
Virtually all news articles say the final shutdown was due to the lack of a representative, and you can read it in an example article right here:
By the way, this tactic of pointing at some arbitrary rule, like needing a local representative, as a justification for some drastic action, is exactly the tactic that has been deployed in authoritarian settings in recent history - for example in the Soviet Union.
> Note X isn't being banned for allowing free speech.
That is literally what this entire issue is about. You can read the text of the order sent to X from Alexandre de Moraes here:
The order is to secretly shut down accounts belonging to various people - which is the dictionary definition of censorship. Refusing this order, which is unconstitutional and illegal under Brazilian law, is what this entire controversy is about.
> I'm defending the rule of law while you keep sinking into the QAnon bias projecting hurr durr my freedoms into other countries when you don't really know what you're yapping about
For the second time, read the HN guidelines and respect the type of interaction that makes Hacker News worth reading. Ad hominem attacks like this not only don’t help investigate the issue, but they also just have no place here:
Irrelevant. Disagreeing on moral terms is not the same as deciding it has not followed the law and must face repercussions, which is what was decided here.
You can "be from Brazil" and still not understand the matter. Legal decisions are not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". They are a matter of law and facts.
How exactly was the judge's decision here not in accordance with the law?
I'm not "a part of the government base" and I happen to think this decision was lawful. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is doing so for political reasons. It would be too shallow to do so.
Manager mode assumes that workers clock in and do what they can to drive the company forward. But there is no altruism among workers. Their decisions are for themselves first and for the company second.
It takes effort, requires goodwill, has damaging implications to internal politics and ultimately is not the best way to maximize tenure at C-level roles.
Executives are solving for their job, not for the company's success.
It boiled down to X not taking down accounts associated with individuals with outstanding warrants who were inciting violence. Brazilian law requires X to do so.
The problem with Elon is that he's decided to pick and choose which countries he will comply with local legislation on, and which ones he won't. So India, Turkey, he did. Brazil, he didn't.
Maybe the Supreme Court in Brazil is "wrong" and "corrupt" where legislators in India and Turkey are not, but knowing a fair bit about all three countries, I doubt very much that to be the case. So then it's a business decision -- or more like a "whatever pisses Elon off" decision, which in the end is just as "corrupt" as your typical corrupt dictator who acts on whatever pisses them off.
It’s a question of what is legal in each country. The censorship orders in Australia and India and Turkey complied with local laws so X stuck to their policy of following them. I detest censoring and authoritarianism in general, but X has publicly stated their policy is to comply with laws in each area.
One thing I’ll mention: after Musk acquired X in 2022, they were engaged in a lawsuit against the government of India in 2023 to fight censorship orders, that they ultimately lost (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66083645). Not that it matters because India ended up passing various regulations (legally) that give their agencies various powers to censor.
Note that in Brazil, no new legislation or constitutional amendment was passed that would give this one Supreme Court justice this power to censor, ban, or arrest. Also note that the orders aren’t from the Supreme Court but one person sitting on it, Alexandre de Moraes.
Moraes was granted that authority by the Supreme Court, so it is legal. Whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but Moraes' actions are not "illegal".
Moraes does seem to be acting like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is dangerous. But then again Elon acts like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is also dangerous, so I don't really mind that X is getting banned. I'd feel completely differently if it were Mastodon or even some other commercial network over which a single person doesn't have an iron grip.
> Moraes was granted that authority by the Supreme Court, so it is legal.
This is not exactly true, so let me explain it. Moraes is himself a justice on the Supreme Court. He was not granted authority by it. His own claim actually acknowledges that no new laws (either legislation or constitutional amendments) were passed to give him this power. Instead his claimed power rests on something more confusing and again, illegal. Brazil has two top level courts - an electoral court and a Supreme Court, for simplification and use of common international language. These two are separate courts and are supposed to have separation of powers. When de Moraes was president of the electoral court, he proposed in October 2022 to the electoral court that he be granted the unilateral power (as a single person) to remove online content as part of his role in the other court, the federal court (where he was inaugurated in 2017) - this is all easy to verify and there are many sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_de_Moraes).
Obviously, it is a total violation of the separation of powers for him to sit on one court and grant himself powers that he can use through the other court. Because no new legislation is involved, it also violates the fundamental role of the judicial system, since the creation of laws is part of the legislative power in Brazil.
> But then again Elon acts like an unaccountable little dictator in his fiefdom, which is also dangerous, so I don't really mind that X is getting banned
I don’t condone Elon’s erratic behavior. However, I think generally he has been more on the side of free speech and civil liberty than the previous leadership of Twitter. For example, after Musk’s acquisition, Twitter tried hard to stop censorship in India through a lawsuit against the government that they battled in 2023. They did not succeed, in part because India passed laws that legalized censorship unfortunately. But at least Twitter/X tried. As far as I can tell, they have been consistent with their public policy of following local laws when it comes to content moderation and censorship. But in Brazil’s case, the orders appear to be illegal (example: https://x.com/AlexandreFiles/status/1829979981130416479/phot...).
Whatever his demeanor is though, he is a private individual, and his actions matter less than actions of the state. Alexandre de Moraes is a Supreme Court justice. Whether Elon antagonizes him or not, he should remain neutral, stick to the law as written, and lean in favor of civil liberties as a default anytime there is something controversial or ambiguous.
Supreme Court has since confirmed Moraes decision re X, so that settles it.
Also, whether some action breaks your idea of separation of powers doesn’t make it illegal (that’s for the judiciary to determine). You may think it’s I democratic but that’s a separate matter (I think a lot of things in the US are undemocratic, especially considering we elected a anti-democracy corrupt businessman as president and may elected him again)
Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've unfortunately been doing that badly and repeatedly in this thread, and we have to ban accounts that abuse the site this way.
I have no idea whether you're right or wrong on the topic—actually I don't even know what side you're on, or even what the sides are—but your posts have repeatedly crossed the line into being abusive and that's not cool.
I'm sure you can make your substantive points thoughtfully if you choose to, so please do that instead.
Your comment isn’t kind, and is calling me names. I am not sure why you cannot just calmly speak to the issue instead of saying that I am buying into “bot-fed rhetoric” or spreading misinformation. The guidelines explicitly say to assume good faith.
> Moraes has the power to decide on this matter and the court will review his decision collectively in due time.
The problem is Moraes was not granted this power through constitutional amendment or law. Feel free to point at something specific otherwise. But here is the breakdown of why these orders are unconstitutional and illegal:
If that is not good enough, look at Article 5 Title IX of the Brazil constitution from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017, which guarantees the following right to all Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country:
> expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license
Posting on Twitter is clearly “communication activity” and therefore must be free of censorship. There are numerous other parts of the constitution that are also violated by the notion of a single justice issuing orders in secret. You can read through the page with the constitutional text if you wish.
> Arguing that this is a political move doesn't even make sense. How does banning X help Lula?
De Moraes was banning content and accounts that belong to the political opposition against Lula. Banning X, a service that provides equal access to social media to all parties, is equivalent to only allowing services that continue censorship of the opposition party. That is directly favorable to Lula.
You're skipping the part where the people they were asking to ban were calling for a coup against the democratically elected government, which is not legal in Brazil. Your argument is a strawman.
Up to the extent it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, according to the Brazilian constitution, including the right not to be discriminated against.
I'd rather make my own choices, thank you very much.