Read starlink refuses to block it in Brazil, now I’m curious if that gets banned or somehow blocked although I can’t imagine how.
The most they can really do is block payments, but even then, plenty of people would have access to foreign currency or bitcoin, so it wouldn’t be that effective. Elon’s also the kind of guy to start giving it away for free just to piss off Brazil’s government more.
They can shut down the ground stations in Brazil, but they can’t block the laser links. They could also try to jam the signals, but SpaceX now has years of experience working around jamming in a war zone.
That’s a lot of work for a shitposting site.
They can revoke Starlinks license to operate within the country; then issue arrest warrants for its operators.
The US has an extradition treaty with Brazil.
“He added that individuals or businesses that are found to still be accessing X by using virtual private networks (VPNs) could be fined R$50,000 ($8,910; £6,780).”
Pretty sure that will include Starlink.
Will it stop people from claiming it was a single judge being political and arbitrary? Certainly not.
Doesn’t matter. The morons that follow musk already have a mindset of us vs them. All of Brazil is they whether one judge or a Supreme Court. Trump was found guilty by a jury co-selected by his own lawyers. But they were rigged against him. Even the lawyers probably. It doesn’t matter.
Even the lawyers probably
That’s what happens when you’re on your 15th-string team because you keep firing and/or not paying people.
I wonder why EU is dragging their feet for so long, when Xitter clearly doesn’t comply with regulation.
They’ve been giving warnings, but nothing else yet?
Also it kind of pisses me off, when public organisations and politicians that claim to defend democracy still use Xitter.
They are using and helping a platform that clearly has as a goal to undermine democracy.Because opposition parties generally have their groups in there, which would cause political backlash and distance the supporters that still use it. Not that banning social networks abusing their privilege through hidden moderation and promotion and selling their user’s data so propagandist know who and how to target shouldn’t be done, but right know it would be done under the counter-chants of “repression” in the particular cold war 2.0 state of affairs of the world today, and that’s very politically taxing.
Private companies, especially global ones, have too much power. Isn’t it kinda fucked up how a company can overrule laws in multiple countries all over the world, just due to how strong their presence is?
Instead of creating a law. The supreme court creates precedence. So in Democratic republics the judicial branch can do as they please? No. Their whole damn courts unhinged. Apparently the whole damn judicial branch is crooked. Why does the supreme court of Brazil have to get it’s nose involved in silencing citizens on PLATFORMS!?!?!?!? JUST ARREST THE CITIZENS!!! BUT APPARENTLY THEY WANT TO ATTACK CORPORTATIONS AND LEAVE THE PROBLEMATIC CITIZENS ALONE! Throw musk in a deep pit, but do it for a damn good reason like he doesn’t pay a living wage.
The court is doing its job, X is not. Businesses should adhere to the country’s law. They can’t pick and choose what to obey or not obey and not expect to take the heat. Elon Musk’s decision to ignore the order was childish and only caused more harm to itself.
Oh no, it’s not. As much as I hate Elon Musk, Alexandre de Moraes is a criminal. Some of the accounts he is trying to ban are specifically talking about some of his criminal activities. He unconstitutionally blocked Starlink some days ago because Elon Musk is part of the board. He ordered the blocking of ALL VPN services because he didn’t want people to access Twitter. That creates a TERRIBLE precedent, even if you agree that what he was doing in the first place was right. He already blocked Telegram and have been censoring everyone who says anything against him. As a Brazilian, it’s really conflicting to see all this going on. Elon Musk is an idiot and Moraes is a criminal.
And nothing of value was lost.
How about the last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law? Just because someone you do not like is on the receiving end, you should not applaud the authoritarian government.
Phew, I thought I was the only one here lol. This whole situation has me wondering what Brazil is trying to do that they’re so afraid will be talked about on X.
if you still think that this is about free speech, you either didn’t read about what’s happening in Brazil or you can’t understand what you read
Literally according to Time Magazine, “It marks an escalation in the monthslong feud between Musk and de Moraes over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation.”
https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/
elmo is trying to make it about free speech and if time is reporting what’s happening they have to write about what x’s defense is
did you completely read that article you linked and said to yourself “oh, they’re trying to silence dissent in Brazil and Elmo is fighting for the right to freedom of expression” ?
Yes. Did you read the article? What do you think this dispute is about, if not Brazil’s attempts to censor content on X?
🤦
It’s pretty simple: did Elon design a legal representative as asked by the judge?
He could have avoided this, but he thought he was above the law, and guess what? He’s not.
Wow, this is like, super stupid.
Wow
Care to expand on this?
Genuinely asking how Elon Musk unilaterally defying a unanimous court order is losing the “last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law.” Seems like more of the same old oligarchy games like it always has been.
- It is a court order for censorship. You may not like what is said on that platform, but it is still straight up suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous. If you do not consider that a problematic move just because you agree with that government for now, you are in for a nasty surprise.
- If Brazil wants to shut down the service because of that: That is their right. Welcome to the same club as North Korea, China, and Iran. But what is that move with Starlink? When and where has it become acceptable to seize assets of a company because you have beef with one of its shareholders? What does this signal to other international activities in Brazil?
There are standards whereby you can determine something is harmful and not covered by free speech. Like calling for violence against a demographic minority. That’s not either censorship or in bad faith, but upholding standards for a civilized society.
It’s basically no different than the fact that you are not allowed to kill people in the street.If Brazil wants to shut down the service because of that: That is their right. Welcome to the same club as North Korea, China, and Iran. But what is that move with Starlink? When and where has it become acceptable to seize assets of a company because you have beef with one of its shareholders? What does this signal to other international activities in Brazil?
First: same club as EUA right? EUA banned TikTok so yeah everyone is in the same boat right now.
Second: The move with Starlink was: Musk has a debt with Brazil, he didn’t paid the fines so the judges decide that they’ll freeze the money from Starlink because they understand that both companies are on the same corporate groupFunnily enough, Twitter is not banned in Iran.
when people volunteer their confessions, it probably makes jailing, torturing or execution easier. Xitter is a helpful service for the mullahs
It is not the government defining something as dangerous. It‘s the democratically elected parliament, the democratically elected government and the then appointed judges which rule based on democratically created laws. And if the society comes to the conclusion that hate speech, defamation and lies are not covered by free speech they can of course shut down X and co. And the law applies also to billionaires.
Its a shutdown for non-compliance with a law.
The law in non-compliance is an attempt to shut down misinformation related to an election where x refused to appoint a court representative. Rather than fight the battle in court they chose to just shut down brazil changing x from a brazil represented company to basically a purely foreign company similar to RT in the US.
Like there’s a difference between showing up to court to fight for free speech and shutting down your offices so you can’t argue your case.
suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous
That’s kind of one of the points of having a government… When it’s applied to banning toxic chemicals or violence, that’s the same thing happening but you just wouldn’t call it censorship.
When I first learned about it, it kind of seems like school bullying or something criminal. “Give me 50000 if you want to keep operating”. It’s kind of funny, but it is also kind of sad. Anyway, the decision has it geopolitical importance.
I can see both sides on this one I think?
Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?
If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?
Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.
I don’t understand your statement, printing Nazi propaganda is a crime so yeah it will be shutdown for committing a crime, doesn’t matter if in the odds day they are printing school books.
Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.
And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.
It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.
Thank god is not the US.
People can say whatever they want but they will suffer the consequences of it, you can not make death threats to people, you can not make defamation like in the case of the female Olympic athlete. If the consequences for these acts are only monetary so the law only works for poor people.
Except the-service-formerly-known-as-Twitter isn’t being “shut down”, it’s being stopped at the Brazilian border. This actually happens all the time with print publications in many countries that don’t take Free Speech to toxic extremes—they get confiscated at the border by Customs officials. It’s less common these days than it used to be, but I’d bet that there are still instances of fringe porn and unapologetic Nazi propaganda being seized.
X-Twitter is free to go about its business in the country in which it’s based and in any other country where it hasn’t been banned, just not in Brazil, until and unless it decides to comply with the courts there. Which it is free to do at any time.
That’s a nice hypothetical but the facts of this case are much simpler. Would you agree that a country is sovereign, and entitled to write its own laws? Would you agree that a company has to abide by a country’s laws if it wants to operate there? Even an American company? Even if it is owned by a billionaire celebrity?
I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)
So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.
And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.
Man you right wingers are a very annoying bunch, always claiming censorship and loss of democracy while applauding the actual wannabe dictators doing gold medal deserving mental gymnastics to justify antidemocratic actions
Yes, of course. The guy advocating against censorship and pro freedom of business must be a right winger. You do know, what the real right wingers will do, when they get these instruments into their hands? If not, you will probably find out soon in Brazil.
Musk is not anti-censorship. He just wants to be in control of the censorship.
The same thing that is already happening in Turkey, India and Saudi Arabia? Musk’s Twitter has no problem censoring people when it’s to help right-wing authoritarians.
america has her own supreme court problems to figure out before anyone starts weeping about brazil being mean to elon fucking musk
Because some 300 million people somewhere have problems with their courts, the rest of the world does not matter?
0 posts and 12 comments like this one. What the fuck is wrong with you?
What? Brazil is driving censorship but we should not care nor discuss, because whataboutism in America? Last time I checked this was lemmy.world, not lemmy.US_centric_worldview
blocked
Nice bait
They are paraphrasing Thomas Paine:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Broski, that’s what Xitter is doing by giving platform to fascists while banning liberal accounts.
Also a conservative MO: act with hostility (or neglect) towards a target and then scream very loudly about any pushback and try to frame yourself as a victim to gain support.
The Supreme Court is upholding the rule of law. If Musk refuses to take action on the massive propaganda and disinformation campaigns that are rampant on his platform and lead to a fascist (like a literal fascist who praised the military dictatorship and openly said it’s only mistake was not to torture enough) getting elected, banning it shows that the democracy is still defensive and able to protect itself.
We can’t let tech monopolies just ignore any democratic rule and do whatever they want.
