3 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges. A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not. B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not. C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
There is no problem with requiring X to appoint local representatives. This has nothing to do with that. Follow the chain of events. The "fake news" inquisition started when some magazine ran a damning article on one of these judges. In retaliation to that, they granted themselves extensive powers. They gave themselves the right to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish crimes against themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 Then comes the 2022 election. These judges become openly partisan. They start censoring Bolsonaro supporters for "fake news". This is what I claim is unconstitutional. Obviously, Bolsonaro was not reelected. These judges are very happy about that. They're so happy they go to public events and showboat about being the ones who personally defeated Bolsonaro. Fast forward to today. The censorship continues. They keep ordering X to ban accounts. Which led to it pulling out of the country. Which led to it getting blocked due to not having a local legal representative. Which led to everything we are witnessing in real time right now. There is no problem with requiring local legal representation. The problem is with the B point in your timeline. They shouldn't be "asking" (actually ordering) the removal of accounts for "misinformation" at all. That is political censorship and it is unconstitutional. Therefore everything that happened after B, should not have happened at all.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

There is no problem with requiring X to appoint local representatives. This has nothing to do with that. Follow the chain of events. The "fake news" inquisition started when some magazine ran a damning article on one of these judges. In retaliation to that, they granted themselves extensive powers. They gave themselves the right to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish crimes against themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 Then comes the 2022 election. These judges become openly partisan. They start censoring Bolsonaro supporters for "fake news". This is what I claim is unconstitutional. Obviously, Bolsonaro was not reelected. These judges are very happy about that. They're so happy they go to public events and showboat about being the ones who personally defeated Bolsonaro. Fast forward to today. The censorship continues. They keep ordering X to ban accounts. Which led to it pulling out of the country. Which led to it getting blocked due to not having a local legal representative. Which led to everything we are witnessing in real time right now. There is no problem with requiring local legal representation. The problem is with the B point in your timeline. They shouldn't be "asking" (actually ordering) the removal of accounts for "misinformation" at all. That is political censorship and it is unconstitutional. Therefore everything that happened after B, should not have happened at all.