6 ms·

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

• frozenlettuce 2y ago
  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.
  • vitorgrs 2y ago
    It's the Justice who interprets the law. 800 million people are in prison right now in Brazil. They can say all their arrest are illegal. That doesn't mean anything.
    • andrenth 2y ago
      Of all the ridiculous dictator bootlicker replies in this thread, this one takes the prize. Brazil's population is ~215 million. Let me call a judge to report your misinformation.
      • vitorgrs 2y ago
        This is called a typo :) I meant hundreds, obviously. Typo is still not ilegal :(
• braymundo 2y ago
  Starlink and X are completely separate entities.
  • jrflowers 2y ago
    They are both privately owned by a dude that reinstated accounts that make threats against members of Brazil’s supreme court(1) and then recently tried to reframe it as a petty squabble about posting by posting weird angry AI-generated memes about a judge (2). It is unsurprising to see somebody that’s actively trying to push the envelope about a country’s sovereignty be hit with sanctions on their business operations inside said country. 1 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef06c0dbbb8ed87495b1afbb0edf211 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef0... 2 https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-posts-ai-photos-of-brazilian-judge-in-jail-insults-him-with-name-on-toilet-paper/ar-AA1pDY1n https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-posts-ai-phot...
    • miohtama 2y ago
      This has been controversial in Brazil - not 100% clear cut. While suspending some of accounts making threats should be supported, de Moraes has been also going after what seem to be legit political activity https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidadania/redes-sociais-se-unem-contra-censura-do-stf-contra-pco/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-gazetadopovo-com-br.translate.goog/vida-e-cidada... Furthermore, instead of banning the accounts upfront, for disputed casese, it would seem to be a fair to have court process for the people involved and let them defend their behaviour. > Last week, the Supreme Court justices ruled on six appeals filed by Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (the group that controls Facebook and Instagram) against Moraes' decision in a virtual session. They all unanimously considered that blocking all channels, profiles and accounts of a person or party is an act of prior censorship, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution and also clearly rejected by the Internet Civil Rights Framework, in respect of freedom of expression.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • guax 2y ago
    Yes, on paper. The legal action against Starlink has claimed that they're being considered part of the same economic group for being controlled by the same private owner, who is considered direct responsible for the violations of one of them. Which is true.
  • reginald78 2y ago
    Separate legal entities, according to the US legal system, yes. But they definitely aren't completely separate entities. It isn't like Brazil targeted Starlink at random.
  • sillyfluke 2y ago
    Not to Elon Musk they are not. He uses all them as leverage to get favorable deals for his other companies. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41281756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41281756 In the practical sense, Twitter is the marketing arm of all his other companies. My theory was that he was acting out belligerently against the Brazillian government because his other companies had minimal or no presence in Brazil. Didn't think of Starlink presence frankly. Regardless, since he himself uses Twitter as quid pro quo with other governments, I'm guessing he saw this move a mile away.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• haneefmubarak 2y ago
  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.
  • braymundo 2y ago
    Yes. Legal insecurity.
    • cassianoleal 2y ago
      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 allowed to be used as a means to evade punishment. From where I'm standing, this is legal security - not the opposite. In fact, I don't know if the law would allow it, but morally I would be fine with Musk being given a prison order or other sanctions for using such artifices in an attempt to evade justice.
      • moi2388 2y ago
        What damage did Elon musk do to your country?
        • kranke155 2y ago
          You have no idea how much disinformation there is in Brazil. Its basically 24/7 information warfare there, from both sides. I have family there, I was blown away by how aggressive it all was when visiting last year. The only time they tried to do tracking on where these posts and sockpuppets were coming from, they ended up in Israel (this is a common practice, I'm assuming to make tracing and legal action more difficult. In Portugal the bots come from Angola). Its clear that the same disinformation farms that are running in the US were duplicated to Brazil, by the same people (Bob Mercer / Steve Bannon). Proof of that was of course, the deeply personal relationship between Bannon and the Bolsonaro family (when he was out of jail he would visit all the time), and the faux January 6th that was replicated in Brazil after Bolsonaro's defeat. You have to understand that the population of Brazil has A LOT less education than the population in the US or Europe. They are far more malleable to disinformation. One of the worse examples I can think of is the disinformation campaign that was activated after the murder of Marielle Franco, who was tagged in fake photos with local Rio drug dealers - while she was still dead inside her car. So a few minutes after the murder, you had a giant disinformation campaign launched. Since it was so fast, the only reasonable conclusion is the murderers control a disinformation bot/sockpuppet farm.
• ripjaygn 2y ago
  Starlink does comply with local laws in BR and wants to do business there. Plus this has repercussions for people in other countries that want to restrict freedom of speech and strong arm social media, and is watched by governments. Plus this is just tech news, you can post 'why do we care' to pretty much any other story on the front page.
  • hkpack 2y ago
    > 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.
    • lobocinza 2y ago
      A billionaire against a violent trillionaire state. What is mightier the pen or the sword?
      • Daishiman 2y ago
        An unelected foreign billionaire against a democratically elected state? State all the way.
        • lobocinza 2y ago
          Supreme court members weren't democratically elected. The aristocratic families that own the Brazilian political system and pull the strings behind the curtains weren't democratically elected. Even Maduro, self-appointed "democratically elected" president of Venezuela, from time to time make fun of Brazilian electoral system. Unelected foreign billionaire as a bonus doesn't force me to pay taxes or force me to use X.
          • hkpack 2y ago
            > Unelected foreign billionaire as a bonus doesn't force me to pay taxes or force me to use X. I see this sentiment almost everywhere in the world: people rightfully afraid of their own governments and willfully grant influence over their country to the foreign and often enemy state. This is a systems problem with positive feedback loop, which means that whoever wins will have all the influence and control over the population over time. And a lot of people see no problem with the fact that it can be the geopolitical enemy until it is too late. I don’t know the situation in Brazil, but I see this happening over and over in my part of the world.
• mrtksn 2y ago
  Because the users suffer from this. What Brazil should do is arrest Musk and anyone complicit with the alleged crimes. Banning products and services is punishment to the users too. Would you ban Paracetamol if the CEO did something bad?
  • mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Yes, send the elite Brazilians to fly black helicopters and get the job done Rambo style.
    • mrtksn 2y ago
      Or pressure US to make their businessmen not committing crimes in Brazil.
      • mensetmanusman 2y ago
        It’s illegal to dishonor a judge in Brazil, that’s why they are going after so many of their journalists, because any criticism can be judged dishonorable by the judge.
        • mrtksn 2y ago
          So? If that's how Brazilians roll, its their business.
          • mensetmanusman 2y ago
            That’s how their elite roll. If the general public learns how things could be better with less corruption, then the world is slightly better off.
            • mrtksn 2y ago
              And that's an opinion which might or might not be true. There's also this trend in America of some elites posing as "People's elite", and in this particular case someone from America's elite who has an open agenda on forcing certain believes over people is trying to force something on Brazilian political elite. I wouldn't call it a fight between good and evil, I will call it "I wish we could have the fight in the Colosseum in Rome".
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• nradov 2y ago
  We care because it's just sad to see a country like Brazil that once had so much potential devolve back into a banana republic. Multiple political factions there are so focused on beating each other that they have lost sight what's best for the country as a whole. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Elon Musk or content moderation policies on X, losing access to Starlink can only be a negative for Brazil's economic development. In the real world, countries that lack superpower status can't afford to stand on principle in international disputes. They have to be pragmatic. It doesn't even really matter which side is morally or legally in the right in this particular pissing match. There's no good alternative to Starlink, Brazil is too poor to build an indigenous alternative, and everyone who needs broadband satellite service is going to suffer. Brazilians deserve better.