3 ms·

Well X/Elon is more than happy to comply with censorship and records requests from Western/NATO countries.

_heimdall 2y ago
I'm no lawyer, but the claim is that the request made by the Brazilian judge doesn't comply with Brazil's own laws. Presumably if X (not Elon) has complied with other censorship requests they found the requests to be lawful.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  It's not up to X/Musk to decide that though. If they feel that way, there are legal avenues to pursue. They should always comply with the court orders, then challenge them. Not doing so is breaking the law and should be punished as such.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That really depends on leverage. The Brazilian Supreme Court really has very little leverage over Twitter (or Musk directly). Twitter has little to gain by complying with the judge's ban before challenging it in court, but they do have a lot to lose. It'd be a different story if Twitter was being challenged by the US Supreme Court, they have mhch more leverage to damage Twitter if they don't comply.
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users. I'd say that's quite a bit of leverage. Furthermore, SpaceX have had local assets frozen. That seems like some leverage to me. Starlink have now decided to comply with X blockage in the country [0] after Musk rattling his sabre saying they wouldn't. It _feels_ like there is at least some leverage. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        > They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users This one, at least, isn't really leverage. If they did comply the ad revenue would be lost anyway. If Twitter does somehow win a legal challenge they can at least try to sue for lost ad revenue, they likely couldn't make that case if they chose to comply. I'm not sure how they can legally go after SpaceX here. Definitely not claiming to know Brazilian law here, it just seems surprising that they could be roped in only for having the same founder/CEO. Unless I'm mistaken they aren't even sibling companies under a shared corporate parent.
        cassianoleal 2y ago
        > If they did comply the ad revenue would be lost anyway. If they had complied, only a subset of Twitter accounts would have been removed from the website. All over 100 million Brazilian users would still be generating traffic to them and the ad revenue that comes with it. I think this is pretty large leverage. > I'm not sure how they can legally go after SpaceX here. > it just seems surprising that they could be roped in only for having the same founder/CEO. From my understanding (which is developing along with the whole situation), even big names in Brazilian law are disputing this. So far I haven't seen anyone say the decision was illegal, but I have seen some questions being raised. That said, my (very poor) understanding is that it's not because Musk is founder or CEO, but because he is the largest investor in both, exerts significant control over both, and essentially uses both in tandem in order to pursue his interests. Again in my very poor understanding, these factors combined made the judge rule the 2 companies more or less like one large financial group, giving him the ability to freeze one company's assets as insurance for the other's unpaid fines. Pardon my lack of legalese or proper understanding and description of things. Hopefully this helps a bit on your own journey of understanding.
- kranke155 2y ago
  Source? outside of course of Elon himself. This just seems like propaganda.

I'm no lawyer, but the claim is that the request made by the Brazilian judge doesn't comply with Brazil's own laws. Presumably if X (not Elon) has complied with other censorship requests they found the requests to be lawful.

cassianoleal 2y ago
It's not up to X/Musk to decide that though. If they feel that way, there are legal avenues to pursue. They should always comply with the court orders, then challenge them. Not doing so is breaking the law and should be punished as such.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That really depends on leverage. The Brazilian Supreme Court really has very little leverage over Twitter (or Musk directly). Twitter has little to gain by complying with the judge's ban before challenging it in court, but they do have a lot to lose. It'd be a different story if Twitter was being challenged by the US Supreme Court, they have mhch more leverage to damage Twitter if they don't comply.
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users. I'd say that's quite a bit of leverage. Furthermore, SpaceX have had local assets frozen. That seems like some leverage to me. Starlink have now decided to comply with X blockage in the country [0] after Musk rattling his sabre saying they wouldn't. It _feels_ like there is at least some leverage. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439798
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > They have essentially lost all ad income driven by Brazilian users This one, at least, isn't really leverage. If they did comply the ad revenue would be lost anyway. If Twitter does somehow win a legal challenge they can at least try to sue for lost ad revenue, they likely couldn't make that case if they chose to comply. I'm not sure how they can legally go after SpaceX here. Definitely not claiming to know Brazilian law here, it just seems surprising that they could be roped in only for having the same founder/CEO. Unless I'm mistaken they aren't even sibling companies under a shared corporate parent.
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        > If they did comply the ad revenue would be lost anyway. If they had complied, only a subset of Twitter accounts would have been removed from the website. All over 100 million Brazilian users would still be generating traffic to them and the ad revenue that comes with it. I think this is pretty large leverage. > I'm not sure how they can legally go after SpaceX here. > it just seems surprising that they could be roped in only for having the same founder/CEO. From my understanding (which is developing along with the whole situation), even big names in Brazilian law are disputing this. So far I haven't seen anyone say the decision was illegal, but I have seen some questions being raised. That said, my (very poor) understanding is that it's not because Musk is founder or CEO, but because he is the largest investor in both, exerts significant control over both, and essentially uses both in tandem in order to pursue his interests. Again in my very poor understanding, these factors combined made the judge rule the 2 companies more or less like one large financial group, giving him the ability to freeze one company's assets as insurance for the other's unpaid fines. Pardon my lack of legalese or proper understanding and description of things. Hopefully this helps a bit on your own journey of understanding.
kranke155 2y ago
Source? outside of course of Elon himself. This just seems like propaganda.