7 ms·

Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol. So I read that this is all because musk refused to app

by dgfitz 2y ago

Disclaimer: indifferent at best to musk, probably more dislike than anything else, but not with vitriol. So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part. Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge. The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian citizens to starlink, something about relating star link to x. so musk said “well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection.” Or something like that. Edit: blackeyedblitzar child comment of this has better information.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.
- vaidhy 2y ago
  We are talking about the same Elon who tweeted the picture of the judge behind bars in an masterful attempt to resolve the issue, right?
  - gradus_ad 2y ago
    Is that relevant to the illegality of Moraes' secret censorship campaign?
    - croes 2y ago
      Is it censorship to block accounts of people who want to overthrow the government?
      - anankaie 2y ago
        Yes, it is; governments do not have a magic right to never be questioned or even advocated against.
        croes 2y ago
        A military coup d'état is unconstitutional in nearly every country, to prevent that and protect the intended way of change of government isn't a magical right but simply a duty of the government. And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less. There's obviously a bias, I wonder why? https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-jair-bolsonaro-spacex-science-politics-8baea417b444c8130e5989225e7c230e https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-jair-bolsonaro-spacex-s...
        Slava_Propanei 2y ago
        [dead]
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        The actual act of a coup is unconstitutional in probably every country. But talking about a coup is not unconstitutional in many countries. For example in the US, seditious speech is protected. Anyways, Alexandre de Moraes - the Supreme Court justice in this situation - is acting unconstitutionally in multiple ways. Issuing orders to censor, ban, or arrest in secret is depriving the victims of due process and the public of accountability. He also said himself that he is not getting his powers from law but from what the other court he sits on gave him as a new power, which is just a made up legal invention on his part. How can a court make up legal powers, when that is meant to come from the constitution and legislation? > And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less. You are one among many attempting the whataboutism of bringing up Turkey and India, even though it has no bearing on what is happening in Brazil. I don’t agree with censorship in any of these cases. However, Twitter/X has publicly stated that their policy is to comply with local laws in each country. The difference is in the legality of orders per that country’s own laws. In Brazil, there is a right to freedom of expression without censorship, per article 5 of the constitution. Also another difference is that the censorship orders here were done in secret - like with gag orders that make it invisible to the public - and this is both highly unethical but also makes this judge unaccountable and difficult to challenge.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Thank you for the clarifying information.
  - throwadobe 2y ago
    Take it with a massive grain of salt for it is biased and poorly informed.
    - mikeywazowski 2y ago
      Care to elaborate?
      - throwadobe 2y ago
        I've replied elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41414019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41414019
- mhh__ 2y ago
  > Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. He's obviously known for his hands off "I just allocate capital" attitude towards his businesses.
- croes 2y ago
  Isn't it about the people who invaded government buildings on January 8 2923 because they claimed Jair Bolsonaro won the election much like the January 6 attack in the USA after Trump lost? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta... The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military? I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases. And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro. And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-twitter-x-profile-2024-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-tw...
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tootie 2y ago
        They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        And what would happen if they did not comply? It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I
- throwadobe 2y ago
  > making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court. Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.
  - siproprio 2y ago
    Well se who lost no less than 7 days from now.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gmerc 2y ago
      > Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. Right. Everyone can see that.
      - labster 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - riverrunn01 2y ago
      You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all. WE have a specific bill that regulate specifically the internet and social media. We have a penal code that assure that freedom of speech it's not absolute. You do not have the right to be racis (for instance if you wear a nazi flag or post nazi content you go to jail). In 2021 the supreme court established a dept exactly to study and create legal mechanisms to understand and protect disinformation (specially on electoral period): https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ And also a vast jurisprudence on the subject on many instances of Brazilian Legal System: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprudencia-em-temas/dano-moral-no-tjdft/responsabilidade-civil/limites-da-liberdade-de-expressao-com-destaque-a-questao-politica https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprude...
- braiamp 2y ago
  > what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. As in Brazil constitution? They don't have free speech, but freedom of expression. Read article 5 of the Brazilian constitution.
  - siproprio 2y ago
    What’s the difference between Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Usually it means you can't say so called hate speech.
    - braiamp 2y ago
      > The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85... It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>. There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Comparison_to_the_US_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
      - lxgr 2y ago
        Maybe aspirationally, but practically, even the First Amendment has limits: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. And who is her boss, again?
  - djbusby 2y ago
    Maybe you're being facetious but, CEOs report to shareholders as a sort of collective boss. Loads of shareholders in Twitter listed here https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-revealed-court-filing-1942970 https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-re... (needs ad-block) and Elmo is a big shareholder.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Not a "big" shareholder but the largest shareholder and chairman of its board.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Unfortunately constitutions are only as good as the people that enforce them. North Korea has a constitution that guarantees civil rights.
- riverrunn01 2y ago
  Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, Tik Tok also had to remove content by court decision and they did comply it. Alexandre de Moraes at election's time was the judge of our TSE -- a branch of supreme court‬ which deals specifically with the electoral process. Many of these accounts participated in January 8, including promoting violence against institutions, some calling for a coup d'état. The continuous disregard of Brazilian laws meant that Musk, which in addition do not paid the fines, also removed his legal representatives from the country, which is not permitted by our legislation.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Thank you for the context.
  - open4glabs 2y ago
    Nope, I'm Brazilian and this is "censorship at all"!
    - bobbruno 2y ago
      Also brazilian here. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of illegal speech. One is allowed to go public and speak their minds, but if their speech is illegal (hate speech, conspiracy to overthrow the government, political campaigning during embargo periods), there will be consequences for those, and that does not constitute censorship. Initially, consequences were not that bad (take down of some illegal posts), then they went to removal of recurring offender profiles.X ignored those Supreme Court Justice orders - their only legal course of action being to comply and file an appeal to the Supreme Court as a whole. That led to further escalation against their legal representation in Brazil and their executives (which is according to Brazilian law), which led to Musk shutting down the local representation rather than following the local law. Which put X in a non-compliance state and led to the order for its blocking. If you understand the initial order to take down posts of defamation and illegal speech as censorship, you comply and appeal. Ignoring a court order is not a legal option.
- gmerc 2y ago
  "Illegal". That's, by definition, for the court to decide.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders If the order is illegal you show that in court. U.S. district courts constantly issue illegal orders. There is a massive difference between appealing for an emergency stay and just blowing off the court. (Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has given zero shits about the rule of law across his career, domestically or abroad.) At the end of the day, both sides in this case are posturing. The judge gets to act like he's standing up to us American imperialists. Musk gets affirmation from his anti-work censorship crowd. The fact that X f/k/a Twitter has zero employees in Brazil should tell you how much that market really matters to him. > Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino This is nonsense. I have a lot of respect for senior people on the X team as well as many of their shareholders. Yaccarino is an obvious puppet.
  - JCharante 2y ago
    I mean, let’s be real. X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter? I fully support Brazil banning X because a country can do whatever they want, but let’s not pretend X owes Brazil anything. Brazil is irrelevant to X and countries that act like dictators deserve to be ignored by foreign companies. It’s hilarious to see Brazil play their cards and show they have no power over their citizens by threatening to fine them for using a VPN to access X. This isn’t bias against LATAM, I also want to see Australia lose business due to their crazy spy laws.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter? Oh, I totally agree with you. But they're not worth negative money. This was a cheap stunt for both sides to pull off. But it's still a stunt. X's TAM has been cut. Brazil's reputation harmed. But both men have personal interests that make those costs worth it, and there isn't anyone in their respective domains who can check them.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think it's worth noting that "this legal order is unconstitutional therefore I won't abide by it" is still illegal to do in any constitutional democracy that I know of, even if you're ultimately right, including in the USA. You can abide by the order and then seek reparations, but you can't claim something is unconstitutional like that.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Obligatory IANAL and speaking from an American perspective. You certainly can, but it usually takes the form of defying the order and appealing to a higher court for a stay pending trial and then hopefully and eventually a reversal of the order when hopefully it is indeed found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
- ElectricalUnion 2y ago
  > Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly: IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly non-anonymous. V - anything considered "free speech" must pay compensation to harmed third parties. X - "free speech" can't violate the personal privacy and honor of third parties. XVII - "free speech" doesn't apply to you if you're trying to assemble a paramilitary force. It is not "free speech" in the "I speak what I want" sense at all. Violation of those rules isn't considered "censorship" because you didn't have the rights (to be anonymous, to harm others, and to assemble juntas) to start with.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech. You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following: > the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation. Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places. > The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license > Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Harming others does not justify censorship I know nothing about Brazilian law. But in general, we always create exceptions to free speech when balancing harms. Spam filtering. Fraud. Et cetera.
- fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
  > This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences. > Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution. In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. > If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders. Also, it probably is not a great idea to try to intimidate/aggravate/insult/threaten the judge (https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481#m https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481...) during those legal proceedings. Judges tend to not love that.
  - extheat 2y ago
    Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.
    - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
      If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender"). I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
- ktosobcy 2y ago
  > The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Oh... so now Twatter/Musk is "god-like" and above the law? Judge Dredd? Why Elon doesn't bring "peace and liberty" to China? Or other nice countries?
viraptor 2y ago
> well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection It's only for existing customers and because they can't charge them anymore, but don't want to drop the customers just yet. It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture.
- bad_user 2y ago
  > It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture. Why is there someone always making this comment every time a company or someone rich does something good for a bunch of people? There's no such thing as altruism, with humans it's all self-interest, and that's good actually. Might as well point out that the water is wet. So why make this comment?
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Altruism exists. Maybe you haven't seen it yet, but it really does. I made the comment, because parent suggested that starlink did something for the citizens in general. That's not correct. The good they did was incidental to preserving customers until they can start charging again. And specifically I mentioned that, because the good part gets played up as some kind of freedom stance by many people online... but it's not. Even the announcement didn't describe it as such.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Sure, but it's still a business decision. On the other side of things, Musk could have complied with the court order, appointed a representative, and accepted that the rep would have their bank accounts frozen and have a pretty bad time of it all. Because Musk might believe being in Brazil is better for his business than not being in Brazil, regardless of any moral/ethical stances he might prefer to take. Musk could cut off Brazilian Starlink subscribers in the hopes that the backlash would change things in Brazil. But instead he probably thinks keeping those customers on (and happy) for free is the better choice for his business. I agree with you that altruism exists, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for many of the decisions he makes.
bobbruno 2y ago
That's the legal justification for blocking X now, not the root cause. Musk did more than refuse to appoint a representative in Brazil (which could be a subsidiary or any legal resident, not necessarily a native Brazilian). X had representation, and when the natural people leading that representation firm were sued (which is legal in Brazil), he shut down the representation, putting X in a non-compliance state to Brazilian law. The whole thing started because X refused to take down posts judged as defamatory against some politicians in Brazil, as well as some profiles accused of consistently posting fake news and borderline illegal content. One can disagree with the ruling and appeal, but ignoring a Supreme Court Justice order is not a legal option, which led to the escalation. True that no one would want to step in as a legal representative of X in Brazil right now, but that doesn't change the legal requirement - it exists so that the State has the power to enforce law over companies effectively operating in the country. The US is doing something similar (in process, motivations are quite different) by threatening to ban TikTok, for instance. The Starlink ruling is mostly being considered an overreach by the Justice. It may take some time, but it will likely be withdrawn. Him deciding to keep the service for free, as long as it complies with the law, bears no matter and should be read most likely as a publicity stunt.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by dgfitz 2y ago

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.

vaidhy 2y ago
We are talking about the same Elon who tweeted the picture of the judge behind bars in an masterful attempt to resolve the issue, right?
- gradus_ad 2y ago
  Is that relevant to the illegality of Moraes' secret censorship campaign?
  - croes 2y ago
    Is it censorship to block accounts of people who want to overthrow the government?
    - anankaie 2y ago
      Yes, it is; governments do not have a magic right to never be questioned or even advocated against.
      - croes 2y ago
        A military coup d'état is unconstitutional in nearly every country, to prevent that and protect the intended way of change of government isn't a magical right but simply a duty of the government. And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less. There's obviously a bias, I wonder why? https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-jair-bolsonaro-spacex-science-politics-8baea417b444c8130e5989225e7c230e https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-jair-bolsonaro-spacex-s...
        Slava_Propanei 2y ago
        [dead]
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        The actual act of a coup is unconstitutional in probably every country. But talking about a coup is not unconstitutional in many countries. For example in the US, seditious speech is protected. Anyways, Alexandre de Moraes - the Supreme Court justice in this situation - is acting unconstitutionally in multiple ways. Issuing orders to censor, ban, or arrest in secret is depriving the victims of due process and the public of accountability. He also said himself that he is not getting his powers from law but from what the other court he sits on gave him as a new power, which is just a made up legal invention on his part. How can a court make up legal powers, when that is meant to come from the constitution and legislation? > And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less. You are one among many attempting the whataboutism of bringing up Turkey and India, even though it has no bearing on what is happening in Brazil. I don’t agree with censorship in any of these cases. However, Twitter/X has publicly stated that their policy is to comply with local laws in each country. The difference is in the legality of orders per that country’s own laws. In Brazil, there is a right to freedom of expression without censorship, per article 5 of the constitution. Also another difference is that the censorship orders here were done in secret - like with gag orders that make it invisible to the public - and this is both highly unethical but also makes this judge unaccountable and difficult to challenge.
dgfitz 2y ago
Thank you for the clarifying information.
- throwadobe 2y ago
  Take it with a massive grain of salt for it is biased and poorly informed.
  - mikeywazowski 2y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    - throwadobe 2y ago
      I've replied elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41414019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41414019
mhh__ 2y ago
> Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. He's obviously known for his hands off "I just allocate capital" attitude towards his businesses.
croes 2y ago
Isn't it about the people who invaded government buildings on January 8 2923 because they claimed Jair Bolsonaro won the election much like the January 6 attack in the USA after Trump lost? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta... The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military? I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases. And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro. And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-twitter-x-profile-2024-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-tw...
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tootie 2y ago
      They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        And what would happen if they did not comply? It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I
throwadobe 2y ago
> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court. Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.
- siproprio 2y ago
  Well se who lost no less than 7 days from now.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gmerc 2y ago
    > Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. Right. Everyone can see that.
    - labster 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - riverrunn01 2y ago
    You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all. WE have a specific bill that regulate specifically the internet and social media. We have a penal code that assure that freedom of speech it's not absolute. You do not have the right to be racis (for instance if you wear a nazi flag or post nazi content you go to jail). In 2021 the supreme court established a dept exactly to study and create legal mechanisms to understand and protect disinformation (specially on electoral period): https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ And also a vast jurisprudence on the subject on many instances of Brazilian Legal System: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprudencia-em-temas/dano-moral-no-tjdft/responsabilidade-civil/limites-da-liberdade-de-expressao-com-destaque-a-questao-politica https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprude...
braiamp 2y ago
> what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech. As in Brazil constitution? They don't have free speech, but freedom of expression. Read article 5 of the Brazilian constitution.
- siproprio 2y ago
  What’s the difference between Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Usually it means you can't say so called hate speech.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    > The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85... It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>. There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Comparison_to_the_US_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
    - lxgr 2y ago
      Maybe aspirationally, but practically, even the First Amendment has limits: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.
aguaviva 2y ago
Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. And who is her boss, again?
- djbusby 2y ago
  Maybe you're being facetious but, CEOs report to shareholders as a sort of collective boss. Loads of shareholders in Twitter listed here https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-revealed-court-filing-1942970 https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-investors-elon-musks-x-re... (needs ad-block) and Elmo is a big shareholder.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Not a "big" shareholder but the largest shareholder and chairman of its board.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Unfortunately constitutions are only as good as the people that enforce them. North Korea has a constitution that guarantees civil rights.
riverrunn01 2y ago
Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, Tik Tok also had to remove content by court decision and they did comply it. Alexandre de Moraes at election's time was the judge of our TSE -- a branch of supreme court‬ which deals specifically with the electoral process. Many of these accounts participated in January 8, including promoting violence against institutions, some calling for a coup d'état. The continuous disregard of Brazilian laws meant that Musk, which in addition do not paid the fines, also removed his legal representatives from the country, which is not permitted by our legislation.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Thank you for the context.
- open4glabs 2y ago
  Nope, I'm Brazilian and this is "censorship at all"!
  - bobbruno 2y ago
    Also brazilian here. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of illegal speech. One is allowed to go public and speak their minds, but if their speech is illegal (hate speech, conspiracy to overthrow the government, political campaigning during embargo periods), there will be consequences for those, and that does not constitute censorship. Initially, consequences were not that bad (take down of some illegal posts), then they went to removal of recurring offender profiles.X ignored those Supreme Court Justice orders - their only legal course of action being to comply and file an appeal to the Supreme Court as a whole. That led to further escalation against their legal representation in Brazil and their executives (which is according to Brazilian law), which led to Musk shutting down the local representation rather than following the local law. Which put X in a non-compliance state and led to the order for its blocking. If you understand the initial order to take down posts of defamation and illegal speech as censorship, you comply and appeal. Ignoring a court order is not a legal option.
gmerc 2y ago
"Illegal". That's, by definition, for the court to decide.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders If the order is illegal you show that in court. U.S. district courts constantly issue illegal orders. There is a massive difference between appealing for an emergency stay and just blowing off the court. (Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has given zero shits about the rule of law across his career, domestically or abroad.) At the end of the day, both sides in this case are posturing. The judge gets to act like he's standing up to us American imperialists. Musk gets affirmation from his anti-work censorship crowd. The fact that X f/k/a Twitter has zero employees in Brazil should tell you how much that market really matters to him. > Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino This is nonsense. I have a lot of respect for senior people on the X team as well as many of their shareholders. Yaccarino is an obvious puppet.
- JCharante 2y ago
  I mean, let’s be real. X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter? I fully support Brazil banning X because a country can do whatever they want, but let’s not pretend X owes Brazil anything. Brazil is irrelevant to X and countries that act like dictators deserve to be ignored by foreign companies. It’s hilarious to see Brazil play their cards and show they have no power over their citizens by threatening to fine them for using a VPN to access X. This isn’t bias against LATAM, I also want to see Australia lose business due to their crazy spy laws.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter? Oh, I totally agree with you. But they're not worth negative money. This was a cheap stunt for both sides to pull off. But it's still a stunt. X's TAM has been cut. Brazil's reputation harmed. But both men have personal interests that make those costs worth it, and there isn't anyone in their respective domains who can check them.
tsimionescu 2y ago
I think it's worth noting that "this legal order is unconstitutional therefore I won't abide by it" is still illegal to do in any constitutional democracy that I know of, even if you're ultimately right, including in the USA. You can abide by the order and then seek reparations, but you can't claim something is unconstitutional like that.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Obligatory IANAL and speaking from an American perspective. You certainly can, but it usually takes the form of defying the order and appealing to a higher court for a stay pending trial and then hopefully and eventually a reversal of the order when hopefully it is indeed found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
ElectricalUnion 2y ago
> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly: IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly non-anonymous. V - anything considered "free speech" must pay compensation to harmed third parties. X - "free speech" can't violate the personal privacy and honor of third parties. XVII - "free speech" doesn't apply to you if you're trying to assemble a paramilitary force. It is not "free speech" in the "I speak what I want" sense at all. Violation of those rules isn't considered "censorship" because you didn't have the rights (to be anonymous, to harm others, and to assemble juntas) to start with.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech. You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following: > the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation. Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places. > The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license > Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Harming others does not justify censorship I know nothing about Brazilian law. But in general, we always create exceptions to free speech when balancing harms. Spam filtering. Fraud. Et cetera.
fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences. > Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution. In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. > If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders. Also, it probably is not a great idea to try to intimidate/aggravate/insult/threaten the judge (https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481#m https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481...) during those legal proceedings. Judges tend to not love that.
- extheat 2y ago
  Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.
  - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
    If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender"). I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
ktosobcy 2y ago
> The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Oh... so now Twatter/Musk is "god-like" and above the law? Judge Dredd? Why Elon doesn't bring "peace and liberty" to China? Or other nice countries?

viraptor 2y ago

> well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection It's only for existing customers and because they can't charge them anymore, but don't want to drop the customers just yet. It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture.

bad_user 2y ago
> It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture. Why is there someone always making this comment every time a company or someone rich does something good for a bunch of people? There's no such thing as altruism, with humans it's all self-interest, and that's good actually. Might as well point out that the water is wet. So why make this comment?
- viraptor 2y ago
  Altruism exists. Maybe you haven't seen it yet, but it really does. I made the comment, because parent suggested that starlink did something for the citizens in general. That's not correct. The good they did was incidental to preserving customers until they can start charging again. And specifically I mentioned that, because the good part gets played up as some kind of freedom stance by many people online... but it's not. Even the announcement didn't describe it as such.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Sure, but it's still a business decision. On the other side of things, Musk could have complied with the court order, appointed a representative, and accepted that the rep would have their bank accounts frozen and have a pretty bad time of it all. Because Musk might believe being in Brazil is better for his business than not being in Brazil, regardless of any moral/ethical stances he might prefer to take. Musk could cut off Brazilian Starlink subscribers in the hopes that the backlash would change things in Brazil. But instead he probably thinks keeping those customers on (and happy) for free is the better choice for his business. I agree with you that altruism exists, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for many of the decisions he makes.

bobbruno 2y ago

That's the legal justification for blocking X now, not the root cause. Musk did more than refuse to appoint a representative in Brazil (which could be a subsidiary or any legal resident, not necessarily a native Brazilian). X had representation, and when the natural people leading that representation firm were sued (which is legal in Brazil), he shut down the representation, putting X in a non-compliance state to Brazilian law. The whole thing started because X refused to take down posts judged as defamatory against some politicians in Brazil, as well as some profiles accused of consistently posting fake news and borderline illegal content. One can disagree with the ruling and appeal, but ignoring a Supreme Court Justice order is not a legal option, which led to the escalation. True that no one would want to step in as a legal representative of X in Brazil right now, but that doesn't change the legal requirement - it exists so that the State has the power to enforce law over companies effectively operating in the country. The US is doing something similar (in process, motivations are quite different) by threatening to ban TikTok, for instance. The Starlink ruling is mostly being considered an overreach by the Justice. It may take some time, but it will likely be withdrawn. Him deciding to keep the service for free, as long as it complies with the law, bears no matter and should be read most likely as a publicity stunt.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]