Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Why do you care, he is spending his own money. Isn't it more important that we now know Brazil has no rule of law. A single party overtook all the subsystems in the country and now Brazil is in the company of countries like Iran or North Korea regarding X censorship. Eye opening is also how many people would condemn an entire nation to censorship only to see one guy they don't like hurt.
He is spending many people's money, not just his own. He's human, he can be both a tech legend and a polarizing, drama-magnet of a human being, I just lament him leaning into the latter when the benefit is winning a pissing match.
No, Eli Musk had it figured out. Speech is free and free is speech. If someone has misinformation, let the people beat them down for it. If someone is wrong, let someone call them out.
The power to make speech is to the people, the power to call out and regulate speech is also to the people. For the state to usurp such a power, is 1984-esque big brother manipulations, for the purpose no more nor less of political control and manipulation
Free speech doesn't equate to the freedom to spread misinformation, supporting and then organizing an attempted a military coup in Brazil.
Whose money not freely given to him is he spending?
Tesla won't last much longer. Their numbers are objectively terrible, and they're puffed up, the truth is even uglier. Boring is losing money fast, X is losing money fast, xAI is losing money fast, NeuraLink is losing a bit slower, but losing. SpaceX is propped up by US govt and Starlink is the only real asset here, and governments around the world won't permit a private company led by a lunatic to have a monopoly on the world's communications, so Elon is really in a VERY BAD NOT GOOD AT ALL situation.
Although considering they needed helicopters dropping 50 tons of water over ONE BURNING TESLA SEMI for like a full day, imagine when a megapack catches on fire. Oh my God, it will scorch the skies of the entire f*kin' planet. I'm kidding (I hope), but you get my point.
Yes SpaceX is the key asset 100%. But he can be kicked out of SpaceX if he keeps upsetting Some Important People, and he's a deeply unserious man-child, and he doesn't know when to stop.
There are other examples, those two should suffice.
Would you rather: He obeys all governments? Obeys no governments?
I have no particular insight into Musk, I speak only to the observation that he appears to support some voices over others and as such that is "his voice" - those who say things he supports and whose opponents he blocks.
"This is at least the fifth time that X, under Musk, has purged accounts that are the slightest bit critical of him, his friends, or causes he supports"
MintPress News journalist: https://twitter.com/alanrmacleod (active, posted in the last hour)
Intercept journalist: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein (active, posted 46 minutes ago)
Texas Observer journalist: https://x.com/stevanzetti (active, posted 2 hours ago)
If these are the best examples of Musk engaging in censorship then he must be doing a very fair job indeed!
A more likely explanation is that the suspensions were related to anti-botting activity, as they came back from suspension with fewer followers than before. Journalists buying Twitter followers is not unheard of, unfortunately:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/journalists-struggle-ex...
https://electrek.co/2022/12/20/tesla-wont-tolerate-dissent-a...
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-staff-slam-elon-musk...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/former-ceo-tesla-criticized-m...
Oh wait, you mean suppress people ON TWITTER? This is an entirely different search query.
Are the judge's (possibly illegal) moves motivated by interpretation of the law or by personal vendetta?
Hard to tell , but i'm glad for less censorship.
He's running the social media service like a kingdom where lèse-majesté is the gravest offense, promoting himself and blocking any topics that he doesn't personally like (including the existence of his own daughter who posts on Threads now).
Old Twitter had flawed content moderation processes, but at least there was a process.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day yourself!
TIL:
> Lèse-majesté or lese-majesty (UK: /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɪsti/ leez MAJ-ist-ee, US: /ˌleɪz -/ layz - )[1][2][3] is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant 'a crime against the Crown'. In classical Latin, laesa māiestās meant 'hurt/violated majesty' or 'injured sovereignty' (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch).[2][3]
"However, Brazilian law, specifically the Civil Code and the Consumer Defense Code, includes a mechanism known as "desconsideração da personalidade jurídica" (piercing the corporate veil). This legal principle allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a company in cases where there is evidence of fraud, misuse of the corporate form, or abuse of rights.
If an owner uses multiple companies in a way that is fraudulent or meant to evade the law, the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the owner and their other companies liable. This means that if there is a proven link between the misconduct in Company A and other companies owned by the same person, those other companies could potentially be affected."
Edit: My comment may have sounded stupid because obviously Musk ownership is a link between both companies though this isn't by itself a valid reason to pierce the corporate veil in Brazilian law. The fundamental criteria is patrimonial confusion and so far I've not seem evidence that X operation was intertwined with Starlink. The only thing is the self-fulfilling hypothesis that people will use Starlink to circumvent the blocking of X.
There's no visible rhyme or reason why he's fighting the Brazilian courts much harder than orders from other less democratic countries, something else is happening unrelated to free speech or any lip service he pays to.
That's your rhyme and reason if you ask me, he just loooooves (wannabe) dictators
But OTOH it is pointless to 'fight' the judicial system of e.g. Russia, or flawed democracies like Turkey which stage a coup. OTOH brazil is somewhat more democratic and it makes sense to appeal to their democratic institutions.
<Mandatory "i don't like elon" to avoid flagging />
Even when giving Elon some leeway to have reasonable doubt I still believe the argument falls flat when he attempts to coat it with his "free speech defender" persona against Brazil but not against dictatorships.
If he's willing to challenge Brazilian courts to the point where Twitter becomes unavailable to the public why wouldn't he do the same in places with much less freedom of speech?
It simply doesn't make sense using his public rationale, if he was a free speech absolutist he wouldn't allow Twitter to exist in places where free speech is impossible and is gagged by dictators' court orders. He's fighting Brazilian courts way too hard given his stance on Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Is he a puppet? Has he ulterior motives in Brazil? We can't really know from public information but that there's something fishy and wrong going under wraps, it is.
Somebody made a case in an earlier thread (that I haven't had time to pursue) that Brazil has the largest lithium mining company (not fields or mines) with standing contracts in South America .. and they claimed that Musk wants to seed unrest | see Bolsonaro (or his party) back in to get a better deal on raw materials for his battery factories in Texas.
That has a plausible ring to it (but, again, I stress I haven't chased the details).
The largest lithium mining company in the region is Sigma Lithium..
Tesla was negotiating to buy the Sigma Lithium but now the Chinese BYD is the favorite.. [0] [1]
China companies are currently owning the EV market in Brazil , and many other developing contries, and they have plans for both cars and batteries factories in Brazil, but they need access to lithium for that and so they are going for the lithium mining companies as well..
Musk not only need the lithium but he also want to block the grow of Chinese companies that are owning the market in many developing countries where Tesla is not present and are even growing fast in Europe..
Musk expect that a right wing government will align with him, and be in favor of blocking China and that would open the door for him to buy the mining companies instead..
[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-considering-bid-sig...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/3c55d69b-6932-4255-ad79-daeced372...
Things in Brazil are not simple as that. Bolsonaro, the latest right wing president, did more business with china and russia than expected. He was one of the first chief of state to fly to Moscou when Russia invade Ukraine, to reinsure brazil would be neutral on this war. (same position of Lula).
But it’s not just Putin who is guilty. The U.S. and the E.U. are also guilty. What was the reason for the Ukraine invasion? NATO? Then the U.S. and Europe should have said: “Ukraine won’t join NATO.” That would have solved the problem.
This doesn't make him stooge or ally of course. More likely it's the toxic side effect from decades of ingesting his movement's own kool-aid as far as geopolitics goes ("The enemy of my enemy can't be half bad", that sort of thing).
But Lula will not move to prevent BYD from buying Sigma Lithium or to help Elon buy it instead.
While a right wing government is not guarantied they will help Elon there is a much higher chance of it..
There were even multiple letters from the Chinese embassy complaining about stuff he said..
China even blocked buying meat from Brazil for a while with the excuse of mad cow disease..
So regardless of how much business Bolsonaro did with China, he would be more inclined to help Elon in blocking China then the current left wing goverment is..
Both know that Brazil is not in a position to refuse to do business with China and the US.
What i said is that Elon expect that a right wing government would block, difficult or delay this single Chinese company from buying Sigma Lithium to help him to buy it instead..
Australia is doing the same think right now.. Australia is currently the largest exporter of Lithium in the world and Chinese companies tried to buy some mining companies there but the Australian government prohibited.. They said the Lithium mining is too important to the country and that they do not want China to control it..
There is some investigation going that China might have went ahead and acquired the mining companies in Australia indirectly via third-party companies and last i have seen Australia government had ordered those companies to sell their share or else they will seize then..
China is still one of the largest Australia trade partners, that did not stopped it from blocking the mining company acquisition..
My point is about this: Musk's expectations will most likely not be met, even with a right wing president. Brazil and China are strong trading partners (and friends nowadays, with Brics became a reality).
While a right wing government is not guarantied that Elon will be able to buy Sigma Lithium, i am 100% sure that a right wing government will work to try block or at least delay as much as possible the acquisition by BYD..
Specially in the unlikely case that Trump win the US election, remembering that Elon is supporting him.. US will not only support blocking China from increasing their foothold in the region, they would likely pressure Brazil for it..
It might even happen with Kamala but to a smaller degree..
Controlling percentages can change, as can state restrictions on a number of conditions.
As I said it's not something I've dug into the details of.
Both Tesla and BYD had negotiations to buy Sigma Lithium, the largest lithium mining company in Latam, where the world largest lithium reserves are..
Bolsonaro, and the right in general, is known to be anti-china and could help blocking BYD acquisition, that would favor Tesla that would be able to buy it cheaper then if he has to outbid BYD...
Cutting the Chinese access to latam lithium would also harm their expansion plans and slow their grow.. That would also favor Tesla as the Chinese is owning the market in many developing contries and are growing fast even in Europe..
Even in the US the Chinese EV are a problem to Tesla, to the point the government quadrupled the import taxes on Chinese EV..
I've read speculation that he's after our lithium mines. Not sure how true that is yet but I don't doubt it.
They blocked the funds of Starlink because of X related business. So why are you saying this?
The @vps_reports account named in the first tweet in your story is a good example. The Intercept claims they were suspended for engaging in "journalism", "organizing" and "documenting extremism". X claims they were suspended for making violent threats.
If we follow links a bit further we see what sort of tweets @vps_reports was making:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1596074770193604609/pho...
> "One last thing. ChayaRaichik10 should live in fear for the rest of her days. It's only fair. Put the PHOBIA in her transphobia."
(there are several more examples like that)
It's not surprising that such people would fall afoul of an anti-threat rule if enforced fairly. Pre-Musk, people like that could make violent threats on Twitter, or even coordinate mob violence there, as long as they were threatening right wing people. Musk fixed that. The Intercept is being dishonest.
Musk was happy to block Twitter content for Erdoğan before the 2023 Turkish election,[0][1] and block Ukraine from using it to hit the Russian navy.[2]
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-ena...
[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitter-musk-censors...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/musk-stopped-ukraine-atta...
Alternative platforms appear to be more civil because they're islands of echo-chambers. The anger is still there, it's just directed at the more abstract out-group, rather than any individuals that are part of the conversation.
I'd say there are less bots and Putin-financed "fifth column" groups around on the Twitter alternatives, and that is the key thing. The porn spammers that make up half of the "likes" notifications on Twitter just don't see bsky or the fediverse as juicy targets and Instagram/Threads has far better tooling to yeet them, and the Putin propaganda army knows that the utter majority of people on bsky/fediverse are progressives where their points just don't appeal.
Social media would be way less toxic if the Western world had yeeted Russia off of the Internet after 2014.
It's a mental shortcut to think that anyone who disagrees must've been influenced by some foreign power. Of course Russia picks up on dissent and attempts to amplify it, but it didn't create that dissent.
I loved it when it was T9 text (sms) to tweet. It was a novel way to share what you were doing say to day. The transformation from personal—to-promotional was their business plan.
When the feed becomes suggested, that’s when shit hit the fan for every social product. They still offer that as annoyware where you have to click over to it, but the nash equilibrium means that even the people you follow are trying to go viral instead of just sharing thoughts.
Reddit targeted the market for thoughtful discussion, and Twitter became the place for one-directional, bumper-sticker, talk radio style politics where nobody actually cares about the truth.
But for those few years between 2006-2010, Twitter was really a cool product.
I'm partial to ATProto, especially when it comes to user choice for algos, moderation, data hosting, and UI. There have been a few good HN posts lately, and in particular the comments therein
If Starlink will basically continue to work well enough if those are seized, it seems like the obvious next steps are going to be crypto/stablecoin payments and a focus on small form factor terminals like Starlink Mini that can bypass customs.
Crypto and stablecoin don't make the physical reality of owning such a device disappear.
I'm not sure how feasible first finding and then fining/arresting owners would be. The proposed VPN fines were seen as outrageously disproportionate.
Is used by the military, hospitals and schools on remote places on the amazon rainforest.
There is a reason why legit companies tend to avoid using the same tools and methods as drug cartels.
@Elon: Start putting your actual servers up in order next.
Before that videos could only be max 140 seconds long. Now the limit is 2 hours.
His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
> All the accounts were restored in a few hours
If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
You're making broad statements and assumptions that don't align with reality. The accounts were banned. You don't know why they were banned or restored.
I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far.
And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X?
No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him.
It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it.
If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no?
[edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that.
I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech.
Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what they've done in many countries, DDR for example. Do you not agree?
Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'.
Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal attack, I must have been wrong, it was a perfectly good faith argument, so I will respond:
I'm saying that Elon Musk see himself above Brazil court of justice, and act like a supranational power. If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw.
I will add that i apologize for the sarcasm but I will let it there, because that's what I would have responded in real life. If you _really_ didn't intend it as a personal attack, you should consider how you communicate with your peers. The first message wasn't any better and close enough to an ad hominem I considered not engaging, but I thought I wasn't clear enough and i needed clarification, so it was a good vehicle. Sorry again if it wasn't a personal attack.
The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".
Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct? Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?
You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.
"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?
Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.
Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp.
But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet.
Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country"
Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.
Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
And if a Court find that X doesn't respect the country law, why should X be seen as a "free speech" leader and not just as an illegal company ?
For me, Musk attitude is just plain bullying as usual, and I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People. But X is not a brazilian citizen AFAIK... so it either follow the rules, leave the country or is illegal.
Moreover, when Starlink refuse to respect a court order, Starlink is although a problem (be it another Musk property or not)
They have the right because you can appeal to the court. The problem is: it’s the Supreme Court, your appeal would be judged by the same judge.
> If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People.
True, but since the Supreme Court is also the only court where politicians can be judged, no one will do anything to stop them.
I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them. I chose to accept that risk because I find this situation to appalling to keep quiet about it. This wasn't a choice I made lightly. My own parents who lived through last century's military dictatorship recognized the signs and asked me to stop commenting online. They feared this guy might order my arrest and generally ruin my life. Their fears are not unfounded.
So I respect Elon Musk for this utterly political move. He accepted the consequences and did something few others would do. I can respect that. I have no doubt he has hidden self-serving reasons behind this move but that's an analysis for another day. Right now I'm just interested in the political ramifications this will have for my nation.
My brother in Christ. There is ZERO chance of this to happen for this kind of comment and to me It only tells me you need to distance yourself a bit from this. Focus on something positive for a week. You're going down a path that is so far outside the realm of possibilities at this time that's worrisome.
The US banned Tiktok for way less than this.
No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.
If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.
As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/08/30/musk-esca...
That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.
I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.
How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?
It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.
It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.
Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?
Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.
In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly
However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).
"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)
The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.
A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.
I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.
America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits
I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.
[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...
Who intended that?
So you have no problem with defamation? Or threats?
I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.
Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.
This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.
X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".
We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".
This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.
The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.
Your hint that Brazil have the USG give Elon Musk the Pavel Durov treatment is chilling, indeed.
I guess after HN is shut down, a Martin Niemöller moment might find you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Personally, I don’t think countries should get international control over satellites that they didn’t launch or operate.
> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017. > In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”
> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.
That article is from 2022 but has a lot of details of overreach by the judge, like search raids on the homes of businessman who just happened to be in a group chat where someone was joking about a coup.
Tangential, but I stopped being upset about asinine takes on free speech and government when I realized that the overwhelming majority of them came from provincial and subjugated Brits, Europeans, and Australians. You can see the bed they've made in their own countries, which I think is punishment enough.
I am not in favor of any government fining people thousands of US dollars a day for the thoughtcrime of using a VPN to access X from within Brazil.
(I'm pretty sure that mods are hiding the VPN-ban news from /r/news and /r/worldnews, because it would damage the ongoing anti-Musk two-minute hates.)
In this context Musk is right and has the power to bring change. He will lose a lot of that power under a Harris presidency that has advertised it plans to continue the crusade against freedom of speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/08/brazil-...
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml
You'd want the white house to do the same if China would want to do something similar with, let's say, TikTok ;)
I'm hoping for a different outcome and the world turns in a better direction than forcing "Democrats" to vote for an un-nominated candidate.
There is a difference between freedom of expression (freedom of opinion) and freedom of speech. The latter contains the former, but is much more than that because freedom of expression stops where hate and discrimination begins.
There's no extortion, the fines are simply due to the company not following courts' decisions. The money itself is inconsequential, the fines are too low to be of any importance to the Brazilian government, they just want Elon to follow the law.
Or do you believe a company should have the power to be above the law in a jurisdiction they operate in?