SAO PAULO (AP) — Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.

Starlink said in a statement posted on X that it will heed Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ order despite him having frozen the company’s assets. Previously, it informally told the telecommunications regulator that it would not comply until de Moraes reversed course.

“Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil,” the company statement said. “We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre’s recent order violate the Brazilian constitution.”

  • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    That’s a bummer. I was hoping EU countries would be inspired by Brazil to actually enforce some of their laws and ban Twitter as well.

    • I feel pretty conflicted on this whole thing. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hilarious seeing Elon squirm, but it’s disconcerting to see everyone cheering on government censorship of the internet.

      • madjo@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        The censorship you’re talking about, was about 6 or 7 accounts that were instrumental in instigating a January 6 style coup attempt in favour of the previous president who lost the election. Those accounts were causing unrest among the population, and were calling for violence in the streets.

        Brazil doesn’t look too kindly to that, given it’s history. They wanted those accounts banned. And instead of arguing the legality of banning those accounts in court, musk decided to get all of Twitter/X banned in Brazil.

        In other words, it’s Twitter/X’s own fault. They could’ve appointed legal representation and tried to argue that banning those accounts amounted to illegal censorship, but instead of trying that they stuck their head in the sand, like an ostrich, hoping it would blow over, by closing the offices in Brazil and refusing to appoint such legal representation. Leaving the courts no choice but to ban all of Twitter/X.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 天前

          those cheering any government censorship

          Child porn is illegal, that is also government censorship.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 天前

        It’s not suppression of speech. It’s the consequence of refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Courts by refusing to appoint council.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 天前

        It’s not just hilarious. Twitter gives him way, way too Mich influence and power. It’s critical that stops.

        Starlink to an extent, too.

        Agree with you that I am conflicted though.

      • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 天前

        Typically, I would agree. However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn’t censorship; it’s Twitter refusing to appoint legal council to respond to any legal complaints within Brazil’s jurisdiction. Musk has made the conscious decision to have Twitter not be legally-compliant with Brazil’s laws, therefore Brazil doesn’t allow them to operate there.

        • However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn’t censorship

          The Brazilian government is forcing an ISP to block customers’ access to a specific website. Whether it’s right or wrong is up for discussion, but I can’t accept the claim that this is not censorship.

          • BlueMacaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 天前

            If Chevron were to start drilling in Brazil without any sort of permits or company representative, you might say that Brazil is within its rights to seize that mining equipment. Would that also be censorship?

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              13 天前

              Do you consider drilling holes in the ground to be a form of speech?

              What kind of “gotcha” is this? Nobody here said anything about Musk’s actions being legal and above board, we are complaining that it is concerning that Brazil has internet censorship laws with real teeth.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                13 天前

                internet censorship

                All countries have internet censorship. Pretty sure the companies in the US block child porn websites (Not going to check and get put on a watch list). The fact that things can be labeled illegal is not new or controversial. If your issue is with what is being labeled illegal you need to focus on that.

                • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 天前

                  All countries have internet censorship.

                  Agreed.

                  If your issue is with what is being labeled illegal you need to focus on that.

                  My issue is not with any content being labeled illegal. I don’t like the government enacting censorship by ordering ISPs to block certain traffic.

                  I think that Brazil is within their rights to seize property or assets of entities engaging in illegal activity.

                  It’s the sort of asymmetric power that concerns me, because by ordering the ISPs around, they can block the entire country’s access to information with the flick of a switch. I don’t want my government getting too comfortable with this kind of power because I don’t know who will wield it next year.

                  I think ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should not be responsible for censoring content. They shouldn’t even know what they’re transporting, ideally.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 天前

            You can’t operate a business that doesn’t comply with the law. They don’t get a free pass just because their business is a communication service.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 天前

      Am I missing something? twitter is still blocked in brasil. The article is about starlink caving in and blocking it as well for brasilian users.

      EU might still block them once they decided he doesn’t comply with the law, and fines didn’t help.

      • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 天前

        Sorry. To clarify what I meant: the “bummer” is that I want the situation with Starlink, Twitter, and Brazil to result in the permanent downfall of that dogshit site, and severe fines for Starlink so that other countries can look toward Brazil as an example of how to deal with the kinds of social media sites that allow disinformation to propagate.

        The fact that Starlink has agreed to comply takes off some of the heat, and therefore leaves some of the territory of fully exploring the legal ramifications of holding reich-wing billionaire freaks somewhat accountable for the shit that their companies do unexplored. Yeah, it’s good that Twitter is still forbidden from operating in Brazil, but I would have liked for Musk to face more repercussions through Starlink as well.

        I hope that the EU still takes action against Twitter though, with or without any additional escalation involving Starlink.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 天前

          I see it as a positive. Elon tried to strong arm the judge but they froze assets to show they’re not to be fucked with. It worked and the billionaire didn’t get away.

          Others can still take it as an inspiration or motivation.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    Pussy. Go on, Elon. Make your companies play chicken with a national government. I’m sure every other national government out there will definitely back you up, because making a company above the law (without paying the requisite bribes) is DEFINITELY something that national governments want to normalize!

    • Blaine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 天前

      Starlink satellites are (quite literally) above the law. Until Brazil develops a space force to go seize them out of orbit, it seems like Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        You can jam the signal with very little power, and you can prevent people in Brazil from paying for the service.

        • anivia@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 天前

          and you can prevent people in Brazil from paying for the service.

          To be fair, Brazil tried that and Elmo just made starlink free for use in Brazil as retaliation. But obviously that’s not something he could do with every country on earth if he wants to make a profit

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        The links require a station on the ground, and services must be paid for monthly. Those are two things a local government can control pretty effectively.

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    Typical. Send the lawyers first to intimidate. Then get told you have no case. Then walk back tail between legs.

  • ravhall@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    The one time I’ll side with musk: it’s in the fucking sky! You can’t block it! It’s not anyone’s jurisdiction.

    • it’s in the fucking sky! You can’t block it! It’s not anyone’s jurisdiction.

      You would find that all countries’ telecom and aerospace authorities disagree with this argument

      • ravhall@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 天前

        A country’s airspace does not extend into space. A nation’s sovereignty over its airspace typically ends at the point where outer space begins, but there is no universally agreed-upon boundary between airspace and outer space.

        Most commonly, the boundary is considered to be at the Kármán line, which is located at an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 miles) above sea level. Everything below this is generally considered sovereign airspace, while everything above it is considered international space, not subject to any one country’s control.

      • ravhall@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        I’m not siding with musk. I’m siding with a sky internet that doesn’t have to block something because one specific government decides that SOME information isn’t legal for its people. It’s the responsibility of the company to ensure it citizens aren’t using that sky Internet making satellite dishes illegal or something like that.

        It’s disappointing musk is involved with both companies. Although he has destroyed Twitter, it is still used by many people to Share information.

        • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 天前

          It’s about Twitter refusing to comply with a law similar to thousands of other laws they comply with around the world.

          In my opinion, it’s because of Lula. Musk has no qualms with abiding the laws of right-wing dictators.

          • ravhall@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 天前

            Well, yes, Elon is a fucker. Fine people for using Twitter, but they don’t have the right to make an isp, that can operate in space, ban anything.

            This, of course, is my opinion. take it or leave it, I don’t care.

    • breakingcups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 天前

      What a dumb take. They are partaking in the Brazilian economy, are they not? They are accepting payment from Brazilians, providing them with telecommunication services. Distributing terminals. Do you think telecom operators should just have the option to completely ignore the local laws if one aspect of their business crosses an international border?

      • ravhall@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 天前

        In the case of providing unblocked internet to the masses? Yes. No government has the right to cut people off from news they aren’t able to suppress.

        Do you think a government should have the right to block its citizens from information? This isn’t China we’re talking about, although at this rate there will be a Great Firewall of Brazil in no time.

        • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 天前

          The government absolutely has the right to cut people off of certain information. If you disagree, try to share some classified secrets, or some child porn and see how well it goes down. The disagreement here is on where the line is drawn on what information falls under that umbrella, and as a sovereign democratic nation, that is Brazil’s call to make, not musk’s or yours. You might have an argument if this was a dictatorship/one party state, but it is not. Still, I’m sure you were equally vocal when Musk was censoring for those.

            • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 天前

              Democratic doesn’t mean libertarian. Democratic means that everyone gets a voice in deciding the direction things go. The people made their choice at the ballot box, and that was Lula, and Lula seems to be on board with the court’s decision and isn’t inclined to push legislation or executive action to change it. If people decide they don’t like the decision that’s been made, their government will adjust or it will be replaced by another at the ballot box. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

                • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 天前

                  Sure, it’s not as neat and clean as that and I acknowledge that, but at the end of the day, a tautological approach to either free speech or censorship is detrimental in either direction. Worries about censorship going too far ARE justified, but there ARE situations where it is necessary, and more exacting and precise public discussions about and decisions on what is fair game for censorship and what isn’t is the solution, not the understandably visceral reaction to censorship in general.

              • Willy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                14 天前

                isp’s and even governments should not be in charge of censoring content. child porn and state secrets and even twitter can be illegal without forcing an isp to censor peoples internet. for years I’ve seen lemmy and reddit fight for net neutrality and common carrier status, but as soon as elon is involved the hate boner takes over. lemmy is so weird.

              • ravhall@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 天前

                If the internet is being used to distribute child porn would you ban the internet?

                You can’t just keep banning everything that is used to commit a crime, because criminals will find a way to use everything to commit crimes.

                Yeah, that telegram porn accusation is pretty disappointing, but let’s not pretend for a moment that any government actually gives a shit about it. It’s being used to have conversations they can’t see, and that’s why they are using child porn—the silver bullet—to take them down.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  13 天前

                  If the internet is being used to distribute child porn would you ban the internet?

                  You would ban the site, and any company refusing to ban the site (FREE SPEECH!!!) would then also be banned.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 天前

              “Your rights stop were other people’s rights start” is Democracy.

              The concept you have in mind were some people’s rights are endless and unhindered by other people’s rights - in other words, are supreme - is called Authoritarianism.

        • Tobberone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 天前

          Had blocking news and access to information been in the cards, as you describe, there would be another discussion. This is not it. The closest this comes is to block a linkaggregator. One that has been deemed to violate the laws in its area of business and being reluctant to take steps to rectify the situation.

          This being the supreme court doing it does bring up the question of democratic decision making, which famiously has been proven by other countries recently. Although they also gave their president the power to remove themselves from office, if I’ve understood that particular debacle correctly.

          • ravhall@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 天前

            I see this and say that Elon is a cunt. He should not have done this. It should NEVER be shut down and NEVER NOT be available.

          • ravhall@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 天前

            Is anything news anymore? It all seems like a bunch of speculation and rumors. Lots of “something could happen!” Don’t get me started on breakthrough scientific advancements. 🤪

            The thing is, if it weren’t for Twitter, and other similar networks, things like Gaza would be squashed by the press.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 天前

      Because, starlink and their investors probably want users in Brazil to be able to pay them for using the service. And, you know without the government’s support that would likely become a problem.

  • Icalasari@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    How long until Elon throws a fit and fires people at Starlink until they ignore judge’s orders?

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 天前

      I’m guessing the Starlink investors had a chat with him about a potential breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit. That’s a stupid concept but Musk isn’t going to win if he deep sixes Starlink for his petty vendetta.

        • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 天前

          Twitter (aka X) probably has a different set of investors who may be happier using it to advance the cause of right wing extremism than the Starlink investors. That said: i thought Starlink was a publicly traded company but it appears it still isn’t so it’s just private investors there, too.

  • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 天前

    They can think it violates the Brazilian constitution all they like, my understanding is that the supreme court already weighed in on the issue and that’s the only opinion that matters in most countries.

    • Blaine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 天前

      What a braindead take.

      You’ve never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices? That’s… hard to believe. You should Google “Roe v Wade” and then check back. How can two different versions of a supreme court rule completely differently on the same issue if the underlying constitution hasn’t changed?

      Read the relevant parts of their constitution, then check the supreme courts decision, and let me know how you think it makes sense.

      • madjo@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        If musk and X wanted to argue that in court, they could’ve appointed legal representation in Brazil. Instead, ol’ musky closed down the Brazil offices of X, like the braindead weirdo that he is.

        As we say in my country, the person who burns his own butt, has to sit on the blisters.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 天前

        Point isn’t whether it’s right or not. The point is that once the supreme court rules, there’s no “higher” court to take it to. The lower courts can’t rule differently on something explicitly ruled on already, and they can’t “overrule” the supreme court since they are explicitly “under” them. So regardless of what Starlink says, they aren’t going to change that, at least not any time soon. And X will either be dead, irrelevant, or significantly modified by the time the court changes enough to get them to change their decision.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        You’ve never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices?

        And the solution is a billionaire and his vanity project flagrantly ignoring the Supreme Court?

      • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 天前

        Alright. What is starlink’s legal path to overturn the decision? Whether the decision makes sense or not doesn’t change what the decision was.

      • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 天前

        The issue is when you refuse to engage in the legal process at all you lose the right to find compromise. It’s the same reason Alex Jones was defaulted.

  • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 天前

    Their calculations for sucking up and paying Musk’s bills outweighed the costs of not doing business.