545
submitted 2 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

SAO PAULO (AP) — Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.

Starlink said in a statement posted on X that it will heed Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ order despite him having frozen the company’s assets. Previously, it informally told the telecommunications regulator that it would not comply until de Moraes reversed course.

“Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil,” the company statement said. “We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre’s recent order violate the Brazilian constitution.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's a bummer. I was hoping EU countries would be inspired by Brazil to actually enforce some of their laws and ban Twitter as well.

Edit: as vxx pointed out, there is a positive way to interpret this outcome, and I was probably being needlessly pessimistic.

[-] vxx@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Am I missing something? twitter is still blocked in brasil. The article is about starlink caving in and blocking it as well for brasilian users.

EU might still block them once they decided he doesn't comply with the law, and fines didn't help.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Sorry. To clarify what I meant: the "bummer" is that I want the situation with Starlink, Twitter, and Brazil to result in the permanent downfall of that dogshit site, and severe fines for Starlink so that other countries can look toward Brazil as an example of how to deal with the kinds of social media sites that allow disinformation to propagate.

The fact that Starlink has agreed to comply takes off some of the heat, and therefore leaves some of the territory of fully exploring the legal ramifications of holding reich-wing billionaire freaks somewhat accountable for the shit that their companies do unexplored. Yeah, it's good that Twitter is still forbidden from operating in Brazil, but I would have liked for Musk to face more repercussions through Starlink as well.

I hope that the EU still takes action against Twitter though, with or without any additional escalation involving Starlink.

[-] vxx@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I see it as a positive. Elon tried to strong arm the judge but they froze assets to show they're not to be fucked with. It worked and the billionaire didn't get away.

Others can still take it as an inspiration or motivation.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

Good point. I edited my original comment. Thanks for providing a more positive perspective on this :)

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 months ago

I feel pretty conflicted on this whole thing. Don't get me wrong, it's hilarious seeing Elon squirm, but it's disconcerting to see everyone cheering on government censorship of the internet.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 2 months ago

Typically, I would agree. However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn't censorship; it's Twitter refusing to appoint legal council to respond to any legal complaints within Brazil's jurisdiction. Musk has made the conscious decision to have Twitter not be legally-compliant with Brazil's laws, therefore Brazil doesn't allow them to operate there.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

It's not suppression of speech. It's the consequence of refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Courts by refusing to appoint council.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's not just hilarious. Twitter gives him way, way too Mich influence and power. It's critical that stops.

Starlink to an extent, too.

Agree with you that I am conflicted though.

[-] madjo@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The censorship you're talking about, was about 6 or 7 accounts that were instrumental in instigating a January 6 style coup attempt in favour of the previous president who lost the election. Those accounts were causing unrest among the population, and were calling for violence in the streets.

Brazil doesn't look too kindly to that, given its history. They wanted those accounts banned. And instead of arguing the legality of banning those accounts in court, musk decided to get all of Twitter/X banned in Brazil.

In other words, it's Twitter/X's own fault. They could've appointed legal representation and tried to argue that banning those accounts amounted to illegal censorship, but instead of trying that they stuck their head in the sand, like an ostrich, hoping it would blow over, by closing the offices in Brazil and refusing to appoint such legal representation. Leaving the courts no choice but to ban all of Twitter/X.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
545 points (98.6% liked)

News

23297 readers
3717 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS