7 ms·
Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
- blackhawkC17 2y ago[flagged]
- mikedelfino 2y ago> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?
- dalmo3 2y agoRule of law doesn't mean written law. A written law can be against the rule of law. Conversely, something might not be against the law but violate the rule of law. > "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- mikedelfino 2y agoDoesn't that quote support the judge's position, though? X is being treated just like all other citizens. The page you linked also states "no one is above the law," so I'm sincerely not sure who we're talking about here.
- anon291 2y agoConsidering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
- mikedelfino 2y agoAre you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be published again.
- xinayder 2y agoAnti-democratic speech like asking for a military intervention is a federal crime in Brazil.
- anon291 2y agoThis is a human rights violation. Humans have a natural right to discuss the overthrow of their governing authorities. I'm not even sure why this is controversial for Americans. In school, we are all taught about the times when our government attempted to do this (and sometimes succeeded), as examples of what not to do. Thankfully, the SC has reversed most of these convictions. Long live the American revolution. Its ideas are needed today more than ever.
- xinayder 2y agoSome of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually following the law in the country is a human rights violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating group of countries in the world.
- anon291 2y agoThe EU does routinely violate human rights as there is no free speech anywhere in the EU. People are regularly jailed in Europe for blasphemy, upsetting people, 'hate' speech, etc. The EU has never been a solid proponent of human rights. There's a reason the American revolution happened (And is arguably more needed than ever) > storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. Democracy is not synonymous with human rights.
- sabbaticaldev 2y agowhat rule of law? Elon musk closed Brazil’s xitter office to not respond to it. This is real corruption
- ImJamal 2y agoAm I understanding this correctly? The judge didn't like what X did (or didn't do) so he is making moves against StarLink, which would allow users to potentially bypass the censorship this judge is pushing for.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- barryrandall 2y agoAs I understand it, X was fined, didn't pay, and the judge pierced a few corporate veils to discover that Starlink and X share a majority owner.
- prepend 2y agoHe had to pierce veils to figure that out? Couldn’t he just check Wikipedia like everyone else? Is this legal in the US? If company A owns B and C; and C does something bad, can A or B be fined?
- hwc 2y agothat's the idea of "limited liability". it has a lot of downsides in practice.
- rlpb 2y ago“Piercing the corporate veil” isn’t about discovering something that is a secret. It’s a legal principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > Is this legal in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Un...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Starlink and X share a majority owner Musk doesn’t own a majority of Starlink or SpaceX. (SpaceX owns Starlink. SpaceX is controlled by Musk. But he owns less than 50% of the shares.)
- pfannkuchen 2y agoIsn’t Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don’t feel surprised or outraged by this, more like— what did you expect?
- protastus 2y agoAlternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?
- belval 2y agoPursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?
- protastus 2y agoElon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time. Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvious that X's stance on free speech is incompatible with Brazil's legislation on hate speech. My opinion is that X never had any intention to observe Brazilian law, and ran out of options to delay and deflect.
- ronsor 2y ago> Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts. This defeats the purpose of corporations.
- 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
- mistrial9 2y agoStarlink is widely used in deforestation and mining in Brazil. Elon Musk personally flew to Brazil to promote it (with Balsenero?), despite the predictions that Starlink would be used that way. The political pitch was that schools in the far reaches would use it - that has measurably failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Federal raids on gold mining operations show Starlink transceivers routinely. source: Brazilian activist report
- blackhawkC17 2y agoThe issue is not Starlink. It's that the Brazilian government is too inept and corrupt to tackle illegal mining in its backyard. Many countries have huge landmasses (US, Canada, China, etc.), yet no one gets away with something as brash as illegal mining.
- prepend 2y agoChainsaws are used as well. And fossil fuels. And electricity. I’m sure if the Feds raid gold mining they’ll find some copper wires and other infrastructure.
- dyauspitr 2y agoAh the why ban guns since knives can kill people too argument.
- prepend 2y agoDifferent argument altogether. Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure. I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it. That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.
- mistrial9 2y agono it is nothing at all like blaming vegetables.. there is no cell phone coverage in the distant edges of inland Brazil.. and cell towers can track users.. Starlink directly enables clandestine communication where that is otherwise not possible.
- anon291 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwway232423 2y ago[dead]
- stuaxo 2y agoWhat are the lumps on his face in that picture?
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962
- mlindner 2y agoThat post is flagged though.