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

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

xinayder wrote: post #30
haneefmubarak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil. 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 wi…

> Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil

Source? That's super material (if true).

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#34

Post by sabbaticaldev »

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.

it is much more unreasonable to leave the country to try evade the rule of the law

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#35

Post by frozenlettuce »

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).

They are complying with local laws. For more absurd that it may seem, they are receiving requests from the Supreme Court to do illegal stuff.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#36

Post by xinayder »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
xinayder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil. 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 wi…

> Musk said you can use Starlink to circumvent the block if X gets blocked in Brazil Source? That's super material (if true).

Unfortunately he deleted the tweet and I can't find it anywhere, but it was mentioned during the whole "Twitter Files Brazil" saga where Musk explicitly said "Starlink userd won't be affected if X gets blocked".

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#37

Post by frozenlettuce »

cesarb wrote: post #21

Does anyone know where we can find a copy of the official order? So far, I only found the previous one ( https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-intima-elon-mu... has a link to it). (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.)

https://g1-globo-com.translate.goog/politica/noticia/2024/08...

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#38

Post by nradov »

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).

We care because it's just sad to see a country like Brazil that once had so much potential devolve back into a banana republic. Multiple political factions there are so focused on beating each other that they have lost sight what's best for the country as a whole. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Elon Musk or content moderation policies on X, losing access to Starlink can only be a negative for Brazil's economic development. In the real world, countries that lack superpower status can't afford to stand on principle in international disputes. They have to be pragmatic. It doesn't even really matter which side is morally or legally in the right in this particular pissing match. There's no good alternative to Starlink, Brazil is too poor to build an indigenous alternative, and everyone who needs broadband satellite service is going to suffer.

Brazilians deserve better.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#39

Post by mensetmanusman »

mrtksn wrote: post #29
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 the users suffer from this. What Brazil should do is arrest Musk and anyone complicit with the alleged crimes. Banning products and services is punishment to the users too. Would you ban Paracetamol if the CEO did something bad?

Yes, send the elite Brazilians to fly black helicopters and get the job done Rambo style.

Re: Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil

#40

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN