4 ms·
It's one thing leading to the other. It is what it is. Are the judge's (possibly illegal) moves motivated by interpretation of the law or by personal vendetta?
by seydor 2y ago
It's one thing leading to the other. It is what it is.
Are the judge's (possibly illegal) moves motivated by interpretation of the law or by personal vendetta?
Hard to tell , but i'm glad for less censorship.
- pavlov 2y agoAs the past two years of Twitter's evolution have shown, more power to Elon Musk actually leads to more censorship. He's running the social media service like a kingdom where lèse-majesté is the gravest offense, promoting himself and blocking any topics that he doesn't personally like (including the existence of his own daughter who posts on Threads now). Old Twitter had flawed content moderation processes, but at least there was a process.
- seydor 2y ago[flagged]
- hkt 2y agoViolent?
- seydor 2y agoA judges' orders are delivered via the threat or the use of violence.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoHere's some examples of the judge's overreach from a 2022 NYT article. https://archive.is/plQFT https://archive.is/plQFT Police showing up at 6am to search your house because you happened to be in whatsapp group where someone else joked about a coup is definitely violence.
- sebazzz 2y agoThere is freedom of opinion, not freedom of speech.
- Levitz 2y agoIn what way does taking X off Brazil decrease the censorship in Brazil?
- cassianoleal 2y agoIt certainly makes whatever censorship might be taking place less skewed by Musk's personal whims.
- Gud 2y agoNo, because that speech could (presumably, can never be sure what’s allowed in a quasi-democracy) take place on another website.
- cassianoleal 2y agoYes but it wouldn't be subjected to Musk's censorship on Random Website, whereas on Twitter it is.
- Gud 2y agoYes, but if the government censors it, it’s forbidden on both. Surely you muse see the difference?
- cassianoleal 2y agoYes, I do. That's precisely my point. It's based on law. Brazil is a democratic country. The law is the will of the people, or at least it is as much as bullshit USA-based representative democracy goes. Still much closer to the will of the people than Musk's personal opinions and whims.
- Gud 2y agoSorry, but you are completely missing the point. Have a nice day.
- rapsey 2y agoI mean he paid 40 billion. He can run it any way he pleases.
- okasaki 2y agoI thought he borrowed it? In which case he definitely can't run it any way he pleases.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nradov 2y agoDebtors generally have no direct authority over management decisions unless the borrower defaults. So legally speaking, someone with majority voting control over a company can pretty much run it any way he pleases. (I am clarifying corporate governance rules here, not taking a position on recent management decisions.)
- throw0101d 2y ago> lèse-majesté TIL: > Lèse-majesté or lese-majesty (UK: /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɪsti/ leez MAJ-ist-ee, US: /ˌleɪz -/ layz - )[1][2][3] is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant 'a crime against the Crown'. In classical Latin, laesa māiestās meant 'hurt/violated majesty' or 'injured sovereignty' (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch).[2][3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté
- glenndebacker 2y agoWhat illegal actions? I did some research instead of blindly following our so-called genius who claims it's against Brazilian constitutional law because Starlink is a separate entity. It actually appears to be perfectly legal and in line with the law. "However, Brazilian law, specifically the Civil Code and the Consumer Defense Code, includes a mechanism known as "desconsideração da personalidade jurídica" (piercing the corporate veil). This legal principle allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a company in cases where there is evidence of fraud, misuse of the corporate form, or abuse of rights. If an owner uses multiple companies in a way that is fraudulent or meant to evade the law, the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the owner and their other companies liable. This means that if there is a proven link between the misconduct in Company A and other companies owned by the same person, those other companies could potentially be affected."
- lobocinza 2y agoAnd where is the proven link between X and Starlink? Edit: My comment may have sounded stupid because obviously Musk ownership is a link between both companies though this isn't by itself a valid reason to pierce the corporate veil in Brazilian law. The fundamental criteria is patrimonial confusion and so far I've not seem evidence that X operation was intertwined with Starlink. The only thing is the self-fulfilling hypothesis that people will use Starlink to circumvent the blocking of X.