4 ms·

Elon 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 outstand

Elon 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
  If that's the purpose of corporations, I'm happy to declare victory.
  - gruez 2y ago
    SpaceX has other shareholders as well. How would you feel if the Florida government got mad at blackrock for ESG, fined them for it, and took that money out of your 401k?
- Qem 2y ago
  > This defeats the purpose of corporations. I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    Musk is a minority shareholder in SpaceX which owns Starlink. One corporation (SpaceX) is not supposed to be liable for the actions of another (X), even if they are owned by the same person. The correct move is to go after Musk directly.
    - Qem 2y ago
      Musk doesn't refrain from using his companies, mainly Twitter, as weapons in petty personal disputes and showdowns. It's a situation that allows piercing the corporate veil, even under US law. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#...
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership They don’t though. And this is obvious even with the most basic web search. To me this looks like political intimidation and retribution by an out of control Supreme Court justice (Alexandre de Moraes). It’s a shame to see Brazil turn into a lawless banana republic.
belval 2y ago
As with all thing Musk I feel like there's a need to separate the artist from the art. If this happened in a liberal democracy there is due process, you can't unilateraly freeze a corporation account, they would prevent whatever company is in violation of the law from doing business in the country and that's it. If the owner can be charged for wrongdoing you can do that too, and then finally if the owner has outstanding debts to the country you can liquidate their assets to recoup the amount. This is not what happened here, a company is accused of breaking the law so another company which, beside partial ownership has nothing to do with it is getting its account frozen. It's weird to see people cheering in the comments for this. If Jeff Bezos gets in hot water with the US government over Blue Origin, should they just freeze Amazon's account?
- protastus 2y ago
  Elon Musk makes it abundantly clear that he has absolute control of his companies and publicly entangles them (e.g. sending Tesla engineers to audit Twitter). X was operating in Brazil while being maliciously non-compliant, in a manner obviously directed by Elon. Ergo, Elon is playing games to operate global companies without complying with local legislation. I am pleased to see a government willing to put a stop to this madness, and I am comfortable with piercing the corporate veil to prosecute this bad actor who is at the root of public and consistent malfeasance. The US government seems entirely unable or unwilling to offer any enforcement.

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
If that's the purpose of corporations, I'm happy to declare victory.
- gruez 2y ago
  SpaceX has other shareholders as well. How would you feel if the Florida government got mad at blackrock for ESG, fined them for it, and took that money out of your 401k?
Qem 2y ago
> This defeats the purpose of corporations. I'm this context, this declaration makes me believe the purpose of corporations is to allow billionaires to disregard laws.
- ronsor 2y ago
  Musk is a minority shareholder in SpaceX which owns Starlink. One corporation (SpaceX) is not supposed to be liable for the actions of another (X), even if they are owned by the same person. The correct move is to go after Musk directly.
  - Qem 2y ago
    Musk doesn't refrain from using his companies, mainly Twitter, as weapons in petty personal disputes and showdowns. It's a situation that allows piercing the corporate veil, even under US law. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership They don’t though. And this is obvious even with the most basic web search. To me this looks like political intimidation and retribution by an out of control Supreme Court justice (Alexandre de Moraes). It’s a shame to see Brazil turn into a lawless banana republic.

belval 2y ago

As with all thing Musk I feel like there's a need to separate the artist from the art. If this happened in a liberal democracy there is due process, you can't unilateraly freeze a corporation account, they would prevent whatever company is in violation of the law from doing business in the country and that's it. If the owner can be charged for wrongdoing you can do that too, and then finally if the owner has outstanding debts to the country you can liquidate their assets to recoup the amount. This is not what happened here, a company is accused of breaking the law so another company which, beside partial ownership has nothing to do with it is getting its account frozen. It's weird to see people cheering in the comments for this. If Jeff Bezos gets in hot water with the US government over Blue Origin, should they just freeze Amazon's account?

protastus 2y ago
Elon Musk makes it abundantly clear that he has absolute control of his companies and publicly entangles them (e.g. sending Tesla engineers to audit Twitter). X was operating in Brazil while being maliciously non-compliant, in a manner obviously directed by Elon. Ergo, Elon is playing games to operate global companies without complying with local legislation. I am pleased to see a government willing to put a stop to this madness, and I am comfortable with piercing the corporate veil to prosecute this bad actor who is at the root of public and consistent malfeasance. The US government seems entirely unable or unwilling to offer any enforcement.