Let’s argue over whether social media is beneficial or not, because unless you are a lawyer specialized in constitutional law and individual rights, there’s no lawyer here to really argue over fine points of the law.
I'm not hallucinating the fact that the "fake news" law was rejected by our representatives, or the fact that these same judges rammed them through anyway via electoral court "resolutions". I know what I saw and I won't have people denying it or calling it "fake news". You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this.
Whether Twitter is good or bad for society is completely irrelevant and I will not argue with you over it.
If you cared one bit about what's good for this society, you would not be trying to divert attention from this omnipotent judge-king's actions.
By your absurd logic, "good of society" is supreme and some judge knows it best, why on earth hold elections? Why not let the judge anoint himself or his cronies for "the greater good"?
> There is no need to “comply with local laws”, because no such laws were passed.
This is the key point. A "fake news" law was proposed. Google even campaigned against it -- and this judge slapped them with arbitrary fines for "abuse of economic power", whatever that is. The law was ultimately rejected by our representatives. And this judge rammed the laws through anyway via "resolutions".
It makes no sense to talk about "laws" at this point. There are no laws here, only the whims of this judge. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law.