21–30 of 76 posts
(The twitter link isn't working for me, it only shows an error message followed by a reload link, so I don't know whether it has a link to a copy of the official order.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink and X are completely separate entities.
They are both privately owned by a dude that reinstated accounts that make threats against members of Brazil’s supreme court(1) and then recently tried to reframe it as a petty squabble about posting by posting weird angry AI-generated memes about a judge (2). 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink does comply with local laws in BR and wants to do business there. Plus this has repercussions for people in other countries that want to restrict freedom of speech and strong arm social media, and is watched by governments. Plus this is just tech news, you can post 'why do we care' to pretty much any other story on the front page.
> freedom of speech and strong arm social media I also see a billionaire strong arming a sovereign nation to push their propaganda machine down their throat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink does comply with local laws in BR and wants to do business there. Plus this has repercussions for people in other countries that want to restrict freedom of speech and strong arm social media, and is watched by governments. Plus this is just tech news, you can post 'why do we care' to pretty much any other story on the front page.
> freedom of speech and strong arm social media I also see a billionaire strong arming a sovereign nation to push their propaganda machine down their throat.
Even Elon’s weird definition where you can say anything but you can’t criticize anything he’s ever said, thought, or done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The judge doing this may be, or may not be, as authoritianism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a cause nor this result as a consequence.
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.
Yes. Legal insecurity.
From where I'm standing, this is legal security - not the opposite. In fact, I don't know if the law would allow it, but morally I would be fine with Musk being given a prison order or other sanctions for using such artifices in an attempt to evade justice.
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).
Banning products and services is punishment to the users too. Would you ban Paracetamol if the CEO did something bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
IANAL but I'm pretty sure this is legal ground enough (plus all the shit Musk spits on Twitter, attacking Brazil and its institutions, a criminal offense in Brazil, from his ivory tower in Texas) to solicit a block of Starlink Holdings assets.
There are plenty of reasons out there to justify these actions and you can be sure Moraes will find them.
EDIT: Musk said this in April during Twitter Files Brazil.