Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#11

Post by miohtama »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #4
xyst wrote: post #2

Why do we care? If Starlink/Twitter/X doesn’t want to do business in BR or comply with local laws, then they are bound to suffer consequences (losing audience or assets seized).

Because it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold one company responsible for the actions of another on the basis of a common shareholder and executive? The rule of law (or at least the generally consistent appearance of it) is far preferable to the open rule of man in wantonly levelling attacks against everyone and everything associated with someone that a government official dislikes.

In a working democratic system, this kind of deed should be malfeasance in office and in minimum lead to the termination of the employment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

Basically a wilful misconduct.

However the balance of powers in Brazil are different from common law, or are corrupted, so we see what comes out of this.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#12

Post by ben_w »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #4
xyst wrote: post #2

Why do we care? If Starlink/Twitter/X doesn’t want to do business in BR or comply with local laws, then they are bound to suffer consequences (losing audience or assets seized).

Because it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold one company responsible for the actions of another on the basis of a common shareholder and executive? The rule of law (or at least the generally consistent appearance of it) is far preferable to the open rule of man in wantonly levelling attacks against everyone and everything associated with someone that a government official dislikes.

Is it unreasonable when the executive and shareholder in question is in their personal capacity flagrantly opposed to compliance and also professionally trying to avoid compliance with a previous court ruling by removing more pertinent assets? And the satellite network itself is a delivery mechanism if/when X gets blocked in Brazil, so there's reason to preemptively seize that given Musk's public statements on this topic.

(In case it isn't obvious: I'm not a lawyer, I've not really considered this in any depth beyond some other news sources besides this tweet, and this is a totally noob question that may have an answer in literally lawschool 101).

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/brazil-supreme-court-just...

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#16

Post by guax »

braymundo wrote: post #3
xyst wrote: post #2

Why do we care? If Starlink/Twitter/X doesn’t want to do business in BR or comply with local laws, then they are bound to suffer consequences (losing audience or assets seized).

Starlink and X are completely separate entities.

Yes, on paper. The legal action against Starlink has claimed that they're being considered part of the same economic group for being controlled by the same private owner, who is considered direct responsible for the violations of one of them. Which is true.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#17

Post by reginald78 »

braymundo wrote: post #3
xyst wrote: post #2

Why do we care? If Starlink/Twitter/X doesn’t want to do business in BR or comply with local laws, then they are bound to suffer consequences (losing audience or assets seized).

Starlink and X are completely separate entities.

Separate legal entities, according to the US legal system, yes. But they definitely aren't completely separate entities. It isn't like Brazil targeted Starlink at random.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#18

Post by haneefmubarak »

ben_w wrote: post #12
haneefmubarak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold one company responsible for the actions of another on the basis of a common shareholder and executive? The rule of law (or at least the generally consistent appearance of it) is far preferable to the open rule of man in wantonly levelling attacks against everyone and everything associated with someone that a government official dislikes.

Is it unreasonable when the executive and shareholder in question is in their personal capacity flagrantly opposed to compliance and also professionally trying to avoid compliance with a previous court ruling by removing more pertinent assets? And the satellite network itself is a delivery mechanism if/when X gets blocked in Brazil, so there's reason to preemptively seize that given Musk's public statements on this t…

I can't answer to legality since IANAL and systems vary anyways, but on a moral basis, yes, it is absolutely nonetheless unreasonable until SpaceX / Starlink actually commit an actionable offense of their own or otherwise demonstrate the intent to do so. It's outstandingly unreasonable and offensive to seize assets of such an entity without charging that specific entity with an offense; especially so when your basis is literally "I want to compel an unrelated venture with common beneficial ownership to unilaterally censor my political opponents worldwide".

AFAICT, Starlink complies with local regulations in the countries it operates in, including blocking access to specific IP prefixes and/or declining to default resolve DNS entries for specific domains.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#19

Post by lobocinza »

ben_w wrote: post #12
haneefmubarak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold one company responsible for the actions of another on the basis of a common shareholder and executive? The rule of law (or at least the generally consistent appearance of it) is far preferable to the open rule of man in wantonly levelling attacks against everyone and everything associated with someone that a government official dislikes.

Is it unreasonable when the executive and shareholder in question is in their personal capacity flagrantly opposed to compliance and also professionally trying to avoid compliance with a previous court ruling by removing more pertinent assets? And the satellite network itself is a delivery mechanism if/when X gets blocked in Brazil, so there's reason to preemptively seize that given Musk's public statements on this t…

Yes it is unreasonable. It's only reasonable from an authoritarian perspective.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#20

Post by sillyfluke »

braymundo wrote: post #3
xyst wrote: post #2

Why do we care? If Starlink/Twitter/X doesn’t want to do business in BR or comply with local laws, then they are bound to suffer consequences (losing audience or assets seized).

Starlink and X are completely separate entities.

Not to Elon Musk they are not. He uses all them as leverage to get favorable deals for his other companies.

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.

Post reply on HN