5 ms·

Brazil Supreme Court unfreezes X, Starlink's bank accounts after taking $3.3M

48 points by ivewonyoung 2y ago

fooker 2y ago
It's absolutely amazing to see a large fraction of of otherwise reasonable people supporting censorship by fairly problematic governments because 'musk bad'. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Kind of seems like a reverse ad hominem.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  It's called human nature. Everything i like is good, everything i don't is bad.
  - fooker 2y ago
    It seems more nuanced. X (government abuse of online censorship, not Twitter) is bad. Bad person Y says X is bad. Now suddenly X is good. The irony being that everyone equated Y with batman a year or two ago.
- philistine 2y ago
  There is zero possibility in your mind not that the Brazilian government is indeed correct, but that Elon Musk is a huge hypocrite and that how he navigates this bad situation displays how dangerous he is?
  - fooker 2y ago
    Elon Musk being a huge hypocrite/ dangerous/etc doesn't have any bearing on whether governments should have the power to snoop on private conversations online and block out voices they disagree with on a case by case basis.
    - philistine 2y ago
      Well, tell that to Elon Musk, who folded to the Turkish and Indian governments (both right-wing and aligned towards Musk I might add) and removed content worldwide on orders from the Indian government. Suddenly when Brazil wants censorship, who's not bending the knee to Musk, it's a whole problem for him? https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235213/x-brazil-suppression-speech-elon-musk-india-turkey https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235213/x-brazil-suppress...
      - fooker 2y ago
        I'm not sure if you are getting the point. Your opinion about censorship should not depend on whether Elon Musk is a hypocrite. Maybe it'll help to think in terms of fictional characters to get over your Elon Musk obsession. If Voldemort suddenly started criticizing Umbridge, it doesn't automatically make Umbridge a great character, no matter how much you hate Voldemort.
      - inemesitaffia 2y ago
        You don't realize what is actually going on. Are you familiar with super injunctions and the associated issues?
- aSithLord 2y ago
  [flagged]
thebiglebrewski 2y ago
I don't get it. Why is Starlink paying for X's problems? Aren't the two separate corporate entities?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Yes they are each separate entities with a different mix of owners and investors. This is happening because this judge is waging a corrupt personal war against Musk instead of acting professionally.
- sunflowerfly 2y ago
  Because Starlink is an ISP and refused to follow the judges order to block x.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    No, they eventually decided to block X. This freezing was done even before the ban on X because the judge wants to put Starlink at peril.
jonny_eh 2y ago
Does this also mean X complied with the order to ban those accounts?
- hiddencost 2y ago
  The title is poorly edited by the poster. They didn't unblock Twitter, they unblocked their assets held in the country.
- vitorgrs 2y ago
  No. X/Starlink didn't pay any fine, either. The accounts were locked by Justice order, and now transferred to the Federal Government. They are just unfreezing because they already got the fines.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > secret gag orders We can debate principles and even the legality of these actions. But they weren't done in secret. (EDIT: I may be mistaken in this claim.) > Article 5 of the Brasil constitution guarantees a right to free speech without censorship Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? If not then there are obviously caveats to when and how one can censor. (No right can be absolute. If it were, it would merit infinite sacrifice to uphold.) Also, why isn’t Article 220 ¶ 5 the relevant one [1]? Article 5 has 74 sections. Genuine question, I have no knowledge of Brazilian law. > taking money out of them - let’s call this what it is, theft A court that can’t find people in contempt isn’t a court. Again, we can debate the principles. But these are straw men. [1] https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_...
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    They were secret orders. Think superinjunctions. Why do people still repeat this?
    - ekianjo 2y ago
      this could be LLM bots parroting opinions these days.
      - inemesitaffia 2y ago
        Could be. People miss the fact the judge gave orders to suppress his personal misdeeds and that the orders to Twitter asked them to take down accounts and posts without revealing it was a judicial order. Or even the reason for the ban. Imagine getting banned from social media, the operator tells you it's for a TOS violation or tells you nothing. You don't realize it's from a court. That's what's this is about.
rmellow 2y ago
> The platform has been blocked in the country of 220 million since the end of last month. Actually, 203 million. The 2018 estimate was 214 million, which was corrected in the 2022 census. Kinda crazy that it was overestimated by 11M.
- piva00 2y ago
  2022 census had lots of issues, IBGE (Brazil's statistics institute) was underfunded due to Bolsonaro's policies.
- VancouverMan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    [flagged]
- vitorgrs 2y ago
  Well... the estimation for 2024 [1] is 212 million... So it seems very likely that the 2022 census was also wrong (there was budget cuts on the institute who do the census, and it had several problems on doing it). This was a big discussion here... ¹https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/41111-populacao-estimada-do-pais-chega-a-212-6-milhoes-de-habitantes-em-2024 https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-...
elashri 2y ago
The original title is more obvious. The current title should be modified > "Brazil unfreezes Starlink, X assets after $3.3M transfer"
- noisy_boy 2y ago
  I don't know why we need to use taking or transfer, that doesn't make it clear what the taking/transfer was - just say "payment of $3.3M fines".
  - nickff 2y ago
    This seems more like a confiscation than a payment; you might argue that’s a semantic difference, but it’s more clear.
    - namaria 2y ago
      That's what happens when you refuse to pay fines. Try not paying the IRS see what happens.
      - nickff 2y ago
        I am not disputing the propriety of the confiscation (in the parent comment); that is a separate matter.
      - ksec 2y ago
        Well in the old days and most part of the world I wouldn't expect Government to take money directly from my account. But is that the case with IRS in US?
        amy-petrik-214 2y ago
        Generally the way it works for IRS is: (1) IRS warns you a lot (2) You ignore (3) IRS takes money from the bank (4) you can prob take them to court, but court isn't required for them to pull your money Any time you owe someone money it works similar (1) you owe someone money (2) you never pay them (3) they are angry/rich enough to sue you for that money (4) the court orders you to pay them (5) you still never pay them (6) they are angry/rich enough to go back to the court, show all the times you demanded payment and never got paid (7) court may or may not order the money forcefully returned

48 points by ivewonyoung 2y ago

It's absolutely amazing to see a large fraction of of otherwise reasonable people supporting censorship by fairly problematic governments because 'musk bad'. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Kind of seems like a reverse ad hominem.

TiredOfLife 2y ago
It's called human nature. Everything i like is good, everything i don't is bad.
- fooker 2y ago
  It seems more nuanced. X (government abuse of online censorship, not Twitter) is bad. Bad person Y says X is bad. Now suddenly X is good. The irony being that everyone equated Y with batman a year or two ago.
philistine 2y ago
There is zero possibility in your mind not that the Brazilian government is indeed correct, but that Elon Musk is a huge hypocrite and that how he navigates this bad situation displays how dangerous he is?
- fooker 2y ago
  Elon Musk being a huge hypocrite/ dangerous/etc doesn't have any bearing on whether governments should have the power to snoop on private conversations online and block out voices they disagree with on a case by case basis.
  - philistine 2y ago
    Well, tell that to Elon Musk, who folded to the Turkish and Indian governments (both right-wing and aligned towards Musk I might add) and removed content worldwide on orders from the Indian government. Suddenly when Brazil wants censorship, who's not bending the knee to Musk, it's a whole problem for him? https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235213/x-brazil-suppression-speech-elon-musk-india-turkey https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235213/x-brazil-suppress...
    - fooker 2y ago
      I'm not sure if you are getting the point. Your opinion about censorship should not depend on whether Elon Musk is a hypocrite. Maybe it'll help to think in terms of fictional characters to get over your Elon Musk obsession. If Voldemort suddenly started criticizing Umbridge, it doesn't automatically make Umbridge a great character, no matter how much you hate Voldemort.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      You don't realize what is actually going on. Are you familiar with super injunctions and the associated issues?
aSithLord 2y ago
[flagged]

thebiglebrewski 2y ago

I don't get it. Why is Starlink paying for X's problems? Aren't the two separate corporate entities?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Yes they are each separate entities with a different mix of owners and investors. This is happening because this judge is waging a corrupt personal war against Musk instead of acting professionally.
sunflowerfly 2y ago
Because Starlink is an ISP and refused to follow the judges order to block x.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  No, they eventually decided to block X. This freezing was done even before the ban on X because the judge wants to put Starlink at peril.

jonny_eh 2y ago

Does this also mean X complied with the order to ban those accounts?

hiddencost 2y ago
The title is poorly edited by the poster. They didn't unblock Twitter, they unblocked their assets held in the country.
vitorgrs 2y ago
No. X/Starlink didn't pay any fine, either. The accounts were locked by Justice order, and now transferred to the Federal Government. They are just unfreezing because they already got the fines.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> secret gag orders We can debate principles and even the legality of these actions. But they weren't done in secret. (EDIT: I may be mistaken in this claim.) > Article 5 of the Brasil constitution guarantees a right to free speech without censorship Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? If not then there are obviously caveats to when and how one can censor. (No right can be absolute. If it were, it would merit infinite sacrifice to uphold.) Also, why isn’t Article 220 ¶ 5 the relevant one [1]? Article 5 has 74 sections. Genuine question, I have no knowledge of Brazilian law. > taking money out of them - let’s call this what it is, theft A court that can’t find people in contempt isn’t a court. Again, we can debate the principles. But these are straw men. [1] https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_...
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  They were secret orders. Think superinjunctions. Why do people still repeat this?
  - ekianjo 2y ago
    this could be LLM bots parroting opinions these days.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      Could be. People miss the fact the judge gave orders to suppress his personal misdeeds and that the orders to Twitter asked them to take down accounts and posts without revealing it was a judicial order. Or even the reason for the ban. Imagine getting banned from social media, the operator tells you it's for a TOS violation or tells you nothing. You don't realize it's from a court. That's what's this is about.

rmellow 2y ago

> The platform has been blocked in the country of 220 million since the end of last month. Actually, 203 million. The 2018 estimate was 214 million, which was corrected in the 2022 census. Kinda crazy that it was overestimated by 11M.

piva00 2y ago
2022 census had lots of issues, IBGE (Brazil's statistics institute) was underfunded due to Bolsonaro's policies.
VancouverMan 2y ago
[flagged]
- saagarjha 2y ago
  [flagged]
vitorgrs 2y ago
Well... the estimation for 2024 [1] is 212 million... So it seems very likely that the 2022 census was also wrong (there was budget cuts on the institute who do the census, and it had several problems on doing it). This was a big discussion here... ¹https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/41111-populacao-estimada-do-pais-chega-a-212-6-milhoes-de-habitantes-em-2024 https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-...

elashri 2y ago

The original title is more obvious. The current title should be modified > "Brazil unfreezes Starlink, X assets after $3.3M transfer"

noisy_boy 2y ago
I don't know why we need to use taking or transfer, that doesn't make it clear what the taking/transfer was - just say "payment of $3.3M fines".
- nickff 2y ago
  This seems more like a confiscation than a payment; you might argue that’s a semantic difference, but it’s more clear.
  - namaria 2y ago
    That's what happens when you refuse to pay fines. Try not paying the IRS see what happens.
    - nickff 2y ago
      I am not disputing the propriety of the confiscation (in the parent comment); that is a separate matter.
    - ksec 2y ago
      Well in the old days and most part of the world I wouldn't expect Government to take money directly from my account. But is that the case with IRS in US?
      - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
        Generally the way it works for IRS is: (1) IRS warns you a lot (2) You ignore (3) IRS takes money from the bank (4) you can prob take them to court, but court isn't required for them to pull your money Any time you owe someone money it works similar (1) you owe someone money (2) you never pay them (3) they are angry/rich enough to sue you for that money (4) the court orders you to pay them (5) you still never pay them (6) they are angry/rich enough to go back to the court, show all the times you demanded payment and never got paid (7) court may or may not order the money forcefully returned