It's one thing leading to the other. It is what it is.
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.
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.
"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.
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]