4 ms·

The Reuters article says: > "The decision to freeze Starlink's accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure

The Reuters article says: > "The decision to freeze Starlink's accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents." This is deliberately misleading. The dispute stems from X having revealed a history of the government of Brazil demanding it censor and deanonymize political opponents and people alleging corruption, and refusing to continue doing so.

linotype 2y ago
So are they paying their fines or not? Disagreeing with censorship doesn’t mean you get to not adhere to the law.
- nradov 2y ago
  If they no longer operate in a particular country then that means they get to not adhere to the law.
  - jowea 2y ago
    Starlink definitively operates in Brazil as of right now, Internet service works (including ex-Twitter).
    - nradov 2y ago
      Just because you can pick up a satellite signal in a certain country doesn't mean that the satellite operator is operating (from a legal perspective) in that country. A country's airspace legally extends only up to a certain altitude. In theory Brazil could try to force SpaceX to stop by taking legal action through the US court system, or administrative action through the international bodies that coordinate satellite communications frequencies and orbits, but that would be unlikely to work.
      - guax 2y ago
        Brazil is not downing satellites. It's blocking bank accounts. They can issue other penalties like revoke isp licenses, I wonder if you can also block traffic from that network (imagine you cannot access your online banking because your provider is illegal), but hey, at least you can still go on X.
      - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
        that’s going to have many world-wide implications
      - linotype 2y ago
        They’ve already said they’ll make the service free for customers in Brazil if necessary.
      - jowea 2y ago
        That's actually an interesting point. As of before this dispute, Starlink obviously operated in Brazil because it operates ground stations in and has paying Brazilian clients. Assuming it continues operating without that, I wonder what would happen. I mean, it's like insulting a random dictator on the Internet while living in another country, right? As long as they aren't willing to send in their hit squad with some Polonium not much they can do. So unless the Brazilian government is going to start shooting at the satellites or those legal channels you mention which I also am not convinced would work. Oh by the way, there seems there's going to be a very large fine for Brazilians circumventing the block to access ex-Twitter. So it may just be on the client side, if anything actually happens.
stonethrowaway 2y ago
And yet people on HN keep downvoting me for supporting Elon doing this. I don’t get the people here. Remove Elon from equation, imagine it’s your company.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  This is a good point. Whomst among us would not leverage our massive wealth and platform and torch our businesses to try and influence the politics of another country by supporting a group that attempted a coup? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/world/americas/brazil-politics-elon-musk-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/world/americas/brazil-pol...
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  It seems to me that for the most part they disagree with this through a mix of emotionally reactionary hatred of Musk for not being one of those billionaires who spouts all the usual correct-think platitudes, and out of a nonsensical supportiveness for the current government in Brazil, it being of the left and opposed to Bolsanero, despite the autocratic nature of its court rulings against "disinformation". It's amusing how in other cases, social media companies and tech companies get shit upon for adhering to the rulings of certain autocratic, censoring governments, but then if one actually makes pretty evidently firm stand as in this case, it's suddenly an irresponsible and reckless thing.
guax 2y ago
It's factually correct. Regardless of inferred or real motivations the legal devices in place are clear and easy to follow. X refused to comply with court order. That would not fly in the US either. Court issues fine and threatens further action. X closes the office in Brazil to keep ignoring rulings. Court gives ultimatum for obeying the order or appoint legal representative in the country. Starlink is grouped as part of the same "economic group" and has its accounts frozen. This is the most arguable decision here so far. Still most agree it would be issued anyways but more steps were necessary for that. It's not about who owns but about who controls it. After the end of the ultimatum period, court order the blocking of X to every ISP operating in Brazil. Starlink shoots itself in the foot and refuses the order proving they're not as separate to X as some argue. Next episodes to follow. Even their tactic here is weird. "Were not gonna follow court orders until our accounts are unfrozen" instead of complying and properly appealing. They appealed using the wrong process and the judge itself wrote that it was weirdly on purpose because they admitted that they knew the right procedure but seem to want to collect bad decisions to garner sympathy
Veserv 2y ago
Yet Elon Musk said that following government censorship requests is the right thing to do: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/13h0qon/elon_insults_matt_yglesias_for_posting_about_the/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/13h0qon/...
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  That's disingenuous

linotype 2y ago

So are they paying their fines or not? Disagreeing with censorship doesn’t mean you get to not adhere to the law.

nradov 2y ago
If they no longer operate in a particular country then that means they get to not adhere to the law.
- jowea 2y ago
  Starlink definitively operates in Brazil as of right now, Internet service works (including ex-Twitter).
  - nradov 2y ago
    Just because you can pick up a satellite signal in a certain country doesn't mean that the satellite operator is operating (from a legal perspective) in that country. A country's airspace legally extends only up to a certain altitude. In theory Brazil could try to force SpaceX to stop by taking legal action through the US court system, or administrative action through the international bodies that coordinate satellite communications frequencies and orbits, but that would be unlikely to work.
    - guax 2y ago
      Brazil is not downing satellites. It's blocking bank accounts. They can issue other penalties like revoke isp licenses, I wonder if you can also block traffic from that network (imagine you cannot access your online banking because your provider is illegal), but hey, at least you can still go on X.
    - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
      that’s going to have many world-wide implications
    - linotype 2y ago
      They’ve already said they’ll make the service free for customers in Brazil if necessary.
    - jowea 2y ago
      That's actually an interesting point. As of before this dispute, Starlink obviously operated in Brazil because it operates ground stations in and has paying Brazilian clients. Assuming it continues operating without that, I wonder what would happen. I mean, it's like insulting a random dictator on the Internet while living in another country, right? As long as they aren't willing to send in their hit squad with some Polonium not much they can do. So unless the Brazilian government is going to start shooting at the satellites or those legal channels you mention which I also am not convinced would work. Oh by the way, there seems there's going to be a very large fine for Brazilians circumventing the block to access ex-Twitter. So it may just be on the client side, if anything actually happens.

stonethrowaway 2y ago

And yet people on HN keep downvoting me for supporting Elon doing this. I don’t get the people here. Remove Elon from equation, imagine it’s your company.

jrflowers 2y ago
This is a good point. Whomst among us would not leverage our massive wealth and platform and torch our businesses to try and influence the politics of another country by supporting a group that attempted a coup? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/world/americas/brazil-politics-elon-musk-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/world/americas/brazil-pol...
southernplaces7 2y ago
It seems to me that for the most part they disagree with this through a mix of emotionally reactionary hatred of Musk for not being one of those billionaires who spouts all the usual correct-think platitudes, and out of a nonsensical supportiveness for the current government in Brazil, it being of the left and opposed to Bolsanero, despite the autocratic nature of its court rulings against "disinformation". It's amusing how in other cases, social media companies and tech companies get shit upon for adhering to the rulings of certain autocratic, censoring governments, but then if one actually makes pretty evidently firm stand as in this case, it's suddenly an irresponsible and reckless thing.

guax 2y ago

It's factually correct. Regardless of inferred or real motivations the legal devices in place are clear and easy to follow. X refused to comply with court order. That would not fly in the US either. Court issues fine and threatens further action. X closes the office in Brazil to keep ignoring rulings. Court gives ultimatum for obeying the order or appoint legal representative in the country. Starlink is grouped as part of the same "economic group" and has its accounts frozen. This is the most arguable decision here so far. Still most agree it would be issued anyways but more steps were necessary for that. It's not about who owns but about who controls it. After the end of the ultimatum period, court order the blocking of X to every ISP operating in Brazil. Starlink shoots itself in the foot and refuses the order proving they're not as separate to X as some argue. Next episodes to follow. Even their tactic here is weird. "Were not gonna follow court orders until our accounts are unfrozen" instead of complying and properly appealing. They appealed using the wrong process and the judge itself wrote that it was weirdly on purpose because they admitted that they knew the right procedure but seem to want to collect bad decisions to garner sympathy

Veserv 2y ago

Yet Elon Musk said that following government censorship requests is the right thing to do: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/13h0qon/elon_insults_matt_yglesias_for_posting_about_the/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/13h0qon/...

inemesitaffia 2y ago
That's disingenuous