41–50 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A billionaire against a violent trillionaire state. What is mightier the pen or the sword?
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.
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.
it is much more unreasonable to leave the country to try evade the rule of the law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A billionaire against a violent trillionaire state. What is mightier the pen or the sword?
An unelected foreign billionaire against a democratically elected state? State all the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Legal insecurity.
As a Brazilian citizen, X / Musk have broken the law and have been fined. The fines are meant to compensate for damages done against my country. I absolutely want that debt to be paid. Moraes, within the boundaries of the law, has seized assets from another company that belongs to the same individual who's committing those crimes and is trying to evade punishment by closing the fined company. This should never be all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is unreasonable. It's only reasonable from an authoritarian perspective.
My perspective is not authoritarian, so no. 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.
https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/bloqueio-de-contas-da-st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Legal insecurity.
As a Brazilian citizen, X / Musk have broken the law and have been fined. The fines are meant to compensate for damages done against my country. I absolutely want that debt to be paid. Moraes, within the boundaries of the law, has seized assets from another company that belongs to the same individual who's committing those crimes and is trying to evade punishment by closing the fined company. This should never be all…
He owns 42% share. What about the other owners who hold the other 58%? What have they done to deserve their assets seized?
I see a lot of commenters here holding up Brazil's actions to an American yardstick. If you want to do buisiness abroad you have to follow their rules and their norms. They may well have the legal right to revoke charters, size assetts or more in persuit of the collection of a fine. The Oglobo article makes clear they have violated the law. https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/08/29/moraes-...
If you want to attract business you have to create a reliable and fair system that people can trust in. Once you break that, it is near impossible to regain.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".