3 ms·

>but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with Moraes essenti

>but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with Moraes essentially wanted a hostage. Executives of companies shouldn't be arrested for things they have no power over, such as content moderation. My guess is that Moraes wanted to force Musk's company to not have a legal representative in the country, because the moment you know if you accept a job there's a high chance that job will result in you being arrested, those business men and women won't want that job. So Moraes clearly forced a situation that drove X out of the country. If anything – it would still have been incredibly draconian and abusive from Moraes part – but it would have been “less bad” if the had skip the whole "arresting the legal representative" thing and had went straight to "block Twitter/X for not complying with his orders" part. But I guess Moraes really wanted to go for the "they didn't have a representative in Brazil, so we ban it" narrative. Which by the way, this requirement, even if it's in the law, it surely not demanded from the vast majority of online companies that offer their service in Brazil. Otherwise they would have blocked Blue Sky as well, because (I assume) it doesn't have legal representatives in the country. So at best this law is being selectively enforced.

n_plus_1_acc 2y ago
Executives have, by definition, cobtrol over everything inside their company.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That's not even a little bit true. Even the CEO is at the mercy of their board, and their shareholders. Other CxO positions are subservient to the CEO. Often VPs are considered executives, and they certainly don't have control over everything inside their company. If Twitter/X were to hire a rep in Brazil, regardless of the title they're given, that rep would have little to no power over the moderation choices of the parent company.
  - 123pie123 2y ago
    Can you explain who has control over a company then?
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      There is no one entity who has control. It is a combination of the CEO, shareholders, governments, employees, and the customers.
      - presentation 2y ago
        This is true, but following this logic you can’t hold anyone responsible for any negative externalities of their business since nobody can solely be in control. That’s not the world I want to encourage.
        yazzku 2y ago
        "externalities" is precisely the kind of word used by those who evade responsibility.
        ziml77 2y ago
        They would never use that word because it acknowledges that there are impacts that aren't accounted for in the costs to them.
  - flakeoil 2y ago
    In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.
    - signatoremo 2y ago
      Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla? Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business. Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwest Airlines -[1] [0] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-breaks-down-southwest-ownership-new-regulatory-filing-2024-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-b...
amarcheschi 2y ago
At the end of the day law will always be selectively enforced online since you literally cannot afford to pursue every single organization not compliant with the law. In fact, what happened with Twitter was something exceptional. Probably, many other organizations are breaking the same rule, but at the same time they're not as important as Twitter and it's not even worth prosecuting such cases

n_plus_1_acc 2y ago

Executives have, by definition, cobtrol over everything inside their company.

kelnos 2y ago
That's not even a little bit true. Even the CEO is at the mercy of their board, and their shareholders. Other CxO positions are subservient to the CEO. Often VPs are considered executives, and they certainly don't have control over everything inside their company. If Twitter/X were to hire a rep in Brazil, regardless of the title they're given, that rep would have little to no power over the moderation choices of the parent company.
- 123pie123 2y ago
  Can you explain who has control over a company then?
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    There is no one entity who has control. It is a combination of the CEO, shareholders, governments, employees, and the customers.
    - presentation 2y ago
      This is true, but following this logic you can’t hold anyone responsible for any negative externalities of their business since nobody can solely be in control. That’s not the world I want to encourage.
      - yazzku 2y ago
        "externalities" is precisely the kind of word used by those who evade responsibility.
        ziml77 2y ago
        They would never use that word because it acknowledges that there are impacts that aren't accounted for in the costs to them.
- flakeoil 2y ago
  In the US the CEO is often also the chairman of the board so they are accountable to themselves. Which is kind of weird and illegal in many countries, but in the US it is almost the norm.
  - signatoremo 2y ago
    Define “often”. Did you know that Elon isn’t chairman of the board of Tesla? Also no, chairman isn’t only accountable to themselves. Where did you read that? Investor having seats on board is so they can have a voice in the direction of the business. Activists investors often try to have a minority stake and a board member so they can force changes at the company -[0]. A recent example is Elliott’s effort at Southwest Airlines -[1] [0] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/activist-investor.asp [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-breaks-down-southwest-ownership-new-regulatory-filing-2024-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elliott-b...

amarcheschi 2y ago

At the end of the day law will always be selectively enforced online since you literally cannot afford to pursue every single organization not compliant with the law. In fact, what happened with Twitter was something exceptional. Probably, many other organizations are breaking the same rule, but at the same time they're not as important as Twitter and it's not even worth prosecuting such cases