Starlink will now be free in Brazil since remote hospitals, schools use it: Musk
metropoles.com
metropoles.com
It should be noted these are two entirely different companies. Hard to see this as anything else except Brazil having a "rocket man bad"-moment.
Not saying that Brazil have the good definition but it’s pretty infuriating how in US and Europe, you are pretty rarely accused when your company really misbehaves.
I mean, we may have thousands of cases of companies killing people due to bad decisions and executives are mostly never prosecuted.
However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses
If you can't see any difference here I really can't help you
Now stockholders should be asking whether going into Brazil is worth the risk because any major stockholder might be punished for their position in an entirely unrelated company. The answer may be yes, it's worth the risk, but the question should definitely be asked.
Also, imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
How else is the judge supposed to punish Elon then, if he doesn't live in Brasil? All the judge can do is go after his assets in Brazilian jurisdiction. Yes, 40% of a company is also an asset in many jurisdictions.
very shortcoming rhetoric
Limited liability is what made modern commerce what it is today.
https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-econom...
(The merits of the case and each parties viewpoints are a separate matter.)
Those are two completely different companies.
The SpaceX board can now decide if they want to keep someone like Elon up. If this cost is worth keeping Elon around then the free market has spoken :)
SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.
This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard.
I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?
In a lot of countries, executives (which Elon is clearly the top most here) have personal legal responsibilities.
Also, if I understand correctly, Musk is playing the game of having no legal entity in Brazil but still to technically stay present in the country (and probably make business but I’m unsure).
IDK if making him pay with another of its companies is legal but in that precise situation, it does feel pretty moral.
On the substance of the case of this censorship conflict, I have not enough information to make my judgment but still, Brazil is a sovereign country with its laws and Twitter have no natural right to be present in Brazil while still not respecting the law.
If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
Did the judge break Brazilian laws? If yes, then we can say it's corruption.
Not saying there isn't corruption in Brasil since there definitely is, I'm saying, is this particular ruling a case of corruption by Brasil's laws, yes or no?
The law said that 2+2=4 and this was the accepted jurisprudence but now he is saying that 2+2=5 because he wants and he can do that because he is a supreme court judge and his decisions legally are the new accepted interpretation of the law.
It's a flaw in Brazilian political that enables supreme court judges to virtually do whatever they want including legislating because they can pick any law and bend it. In a healthy system the supreme court would be challenged by the senate but this doesn't happen because most senators are corrupt and it is the supreme court who judge such cases.
Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil
Oh yeah. The US were an interestingly robust society and democracy to observe since the Trump election.
Kind of obvious IMO that money translates into less real-world power than ever before in history. In 1800, this judge would be at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. In 1950, he'd be deposed in a paid coup. In 2024... the richest man in the world complains about him on Twitter.
100 or 200 years ago someone with that kind of wealth could definitely have had a country strong-armed into doing what they want - someone like the owners of the United Fruit Company or the East India Company.
So let’s remember that when assuming that billionaires whose wealth is mostly tied up in their company are actually a lot less wealthy and are less able to extract their wealth then the news makes it out to be.
That's not what's happening here though. What's happening is the Brazilian state, through a Supreme Court justice, going against Musk. Not a single individual.
It's kind of funny how Brazil always ends up named as part of the "BRIC" group. India put a spacecraft on the moon. Russia is, well, Russia. China is unquestionably a world power. Brazil is... The world's soy and cattle farm.
I'm not trying to diss the country, not every country could or should aspire to hegemony... but Brazil could sink into the Atlantic and I'd read about it in the NYTimes two weeks later.