31–40 of 55 posts
Starlink is widely used in deforestation and mining in Brazil. Elon Musk personally flew to Brazil to promote it (with Balsenero?), despite the predictions that Starlink would be used that way. The political pitch was that schools in the far reaches would use it - that has measurably failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Federal raids on gold mining operations show Starlink transceivers routinely. source: Brazilian activ…
Isn’t Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don’t feel surprised or outraged by this, more like— what did you expect?
Starlink is widely used in deforestation and mining in Brazil. Elon Musk personally flew to Brazil to promote it (with Balsenero?), despite the predictions that Starlink would be used that way. The political pitch was that schools in the far reaches would use it - that has measurably failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Federal raids on gold mining operations show Starlink transceivers routinely. source: Brazilian activ…
Chainsaws are used as well. And fossil fuels. And electricity. I’m sure if the Feds raid gold mining they’ll find some copper wires and other infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually…
> storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense.
Democracy is not synonymous with human rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chainsaws are used as well. And fossil fuels. And electricity. I’m sure if the Feds raid gold mining they’ll find some copper wires and other infrastructure.
Ah the why ban guns since knives can kill people too argument.
Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure.
I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it.
That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the why ban guns since knives can kill people too argument.
Different argument altogether. Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure. I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it. That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.
Isn’t Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don’t feel surprised or outraged by this, more like— what did you expect?
Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different argument altogether. Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure. I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it. That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.
no it is nothing at all like blaming vegetables.. there is no cell phone coverage in the distant edges of inland Brazil.. and cell towers can track users.. Starlink directly enables clandestine communication where that is otherwise not possible.
Just like the mining operations use petroleum to mine. Petroleum directly enabled mining.
Mining uses electricity. Electricity directly enabled mining.
Directly enabling something doesn’t matter. If the tool is made to only do that, then it does. There are a lot of cases in the US about this. Like Betamax case where the court ruled that just being used for something illegal doesn’t give culpability, it’s necessary to be made specifically to do something illegal.
If starlink specifically added functionality to enable illegal mining then you might have a valid argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?
Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?
Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts.
I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvious that X's stance on free speech is incompatible with Brazil's legislation on hate speech. My opinion is that X never had any intention to observe Brazilian law, and ran out of options to delay and deflect.