It is unsurprising to see somebody that’s actively trying to push the envelope about a country’s sovereignty be hit with sanctions on their business operations inside said country.
1 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef0...
2 https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-posts-ai-phot...
https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidada...
Furthermore, instead of banning the accounts upfront, for disputed casese, it would seem to be a fair to have court process for the people involved and let them defend their behaviour.
> Last week, the Supreme Court justices ruled on six appeals filed by Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (the group that controls Facebook and Instagram) against Moraes' decision in a virtual session. They all unanimously considered that blocking all channels, profiles and accounts of a person or party is an act of prior censorship, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution and also clearly rejected by the Internet Civil Rights Framework, in respect of freedom of expression.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41281756
In the practical sense, Twitter is the marketing arm of all his other companies. My theory was that he was acting out belligerently against the Brazillian government because his other companies had minimal or no presence in Brazil. Didn't think of Starlink presence frankly.
Regardless, since he himself uses Twitter as quid pro quo with other governments, I'm guessing he saw this move a mile away.