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

Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#81

Post by pyrale »

olivierduval wrote: post #55

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…

> I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)

No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.

If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.

As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/08/30/musk-esca...

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#82

Post by _heimdall »

olivierduval wrote: post #55

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…

> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?

That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.

I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#83

Post by diegoholiveira »

fmajid wrote: post #77
hkt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's happening is clear: Elon doesn't like Lula, the Brazilian president. Lula is left wing: his predecessor was a Trump-esque idiot. I'd guess many of Lula's actual policies harm the Musk's material interests in some way, or are just things he doesn't like. It might literally just be that Musk has heard Lula is left wing and therefore wants to make life as hard as possible.

Judge Moraes has had his share of run-ins with Lula, and can hardly be described as a stooge for the Left. What he has been doing is go after Brazil's version of the Jan 6th insurrectionists, whom Musk is congenial to along with other far-right causes. As Germany showed, if you don't go after thugs when they are still in their inept beer-hall putsch phase, it is too late afterwards.

The process that makes X be blocked here in Brazil started in 2019, way before Jan 6th.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#84

Post by EasyMark »

teekert wrote: post #56
defrost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposition parties and activists in India and Turkey - both at the request of the governments there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41387061 There are other examples, those two should suffice.

He's selective wrt which governments he is giving into, he's not blocking anything himself. Would you rather: He obeys all governments? Obeys no governments?

I think the point is that he shouldn’t lie about selective “free speech” in Brazil he seems all for it to the point of getting kicked out of the country. With more friendly regimes he is happy to censor other voices than the official “state”voice. I think people are looking for consistency and honesty rather than the charade his currently projecting.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#85

Post by pyrale »

hereme888 wrote: post #59
olivierduval wrote: post #55

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…

The judge is violating the constitution of his own country and engaging in censorship of political opponents.

That is something that should be solved in front of Brazilian courts, not by foreign interference from a vigilante billionaire.

The US banned Tiktok for way less than this.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#86

Post by Pedro_Ribeiro »

rowanG077 wrote: post #64
greesil wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we need 10000 communication satellites compared to what a terrestrial network can provide? Cellular networks reutilize spectrum much more efficiently than space based systems. I get that there niche applications like rural broadband and military communications. I have no idea if Kessler syndrome is a real possibility but if it is then it doesn't seem worth it.

Yes we desperately do need it. Sure if you are living in your comfy American city you don't see the need. But most places on earth actually don't have a convenient cell tower or terrestrial network. Starlink is much more efficient to cover those areas then manually building out infrastructure there. It's not even a contest.

Also don't forget the unhealthy Monopoly lots of ISPs own on small areas. Starlink disrupts that.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#87

Post by r0ckarong »

teekert wrote: post #41
r0ckarong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only speech this man wants to be free is his own.

Do you have any examples where he blocks other people's speech?

https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/elo...

https://electrek.co/2022/12/20/tesla-wont-tolerate-dissent-a...

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-staff-slam-elon-musk...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/former-ceo-tesla-criticized-m...

Oh wait, you mean suppress people ON TWITTER? This is an entirely different search query.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#88

Post by matheusmoreira »

olivierduval wrote: post #55

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…

> the Supreme Court of a democracy

This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.

X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".

We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".

This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.

The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:

> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited

Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#89

Post by defrost »

teekert wrote: post #65
defrost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked for examples where he has blocked peoples speech. I provided examples of where he has blocked peoples speech.

Sorry, I was asking in context of OP "The only speech this man wants to be free is his own.", seems like there is no evidence of him bringing this statement into effect, I was looking for such evidence, as in: He blocked someone by himself for himself.

It appears that Musk is currently aligned with more extreme right wing conservative voices, he appears to tweet and retweet in their support, he blocks the oposition of such governments in Turkey and India, he more recently seems to support both Trump and Bolsonaro, both right wing election deniers who encouraged attempts to overthrow elections.

I have no particular insight into Musk, I speak only to the observation that he appears to support some voices over others and as such that is "his voice" - those who say things he supports and whose opponents he blocks.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#90

Post by mcosta »

olivierduval wrote: post #55

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN