4 ms·

Am 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 potentiall

Am 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 ago
As 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 ago
  He 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 ago
    that'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.)
  - notfish 2y ago
    Musk owns 79% of voting shares of spacex (but yes, only 42% of equity). I guess it depends on your definition of “owns”, but its not unreasonable to say he owns spacex.
xinayder 2y ago
It's not a question whether the judge disliked what X did or not. They were subpoenaed to block the accounts engaged in anti-democratic speech. Failing to do so, X would have to pay a 2k USD daily fine until they cooperated. X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt they owe to the state. Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian state.
- mlindner 2y ago
  They were subpoenaed because of the judge's personal dislike for those accounts. It had nothing to do with the law.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

barryrandall 2y ago

As 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 ago
He 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 ago
  that'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.)
- notfish 2y ago
  Musk owns 79% of voting shares of spacex (but yes, only 42% of equity). I guess it depends on your definition of “owns”, but its not unreasonable to say he owns spacex.

xinayder 2y ago

It's not a question whether the judge disliked what X did or not. They were subpoenaed to block the accounts engaged in anti-democratic speech. Failing to do so, X would have to pay a 2k USD daily fine until they cooperated. X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt they owe to the state. Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian state.

mlindner 2y ago
They were subpoenaed because of the judge's personal dislike for those accounts. It had nothing to do with the law.