• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, then he got a bunch of backlash and now he’s doing the reverse. And people are losing their shit even more

        • StinkySocialist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think he’s just a hypocrite who will say anything and contradict it when it’s better for him.

          Have you ever seen his trans daughter who he disowned for being trans talk about him? He’s not a good dude. For years when I first heard of him I was tricked too. Look into him some more man. He’s a piece of shit.

          Here’s some reasons:

          Taking credit for other people 's work. I don’t think he actually founded any of the companies he owns besides the boring company. That hasn’t done anything right? Lol

          Having emotional temper tantrums where he tries to ruin people’s lives, for example that diver he called a pedophile for no reason.

          Again his hypocrisy around his political beliefs. For example how he champions “Free speech” but also will censor words like ‘cis’. It’s clear to me and many others that “free speech” to Elon just means people are free to say what Elon wants.

          • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Personally I don’t give a shit about Musk. I don’t care about any celebrities but I try to not hate any of them because that’s way too much attention I’m giving to someone who is so insignificant to me. I’m just always aware of them from being on these social media sites because there’s always a legion of fans and haters. Maybe I’m really just complaining about social media and wish we were in the time of MySpace. Things were simple then and the internet was wild and untamed.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Weird how he’s helping the far right in both cases.

        • complying with Erdogan
        • refusing to block fascists
        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Musk complies where his business lies. China, India, America, Europe…

          Where there’s Tesla there’s Twitter regulation.

  • flashgnash@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Do people here not generally dislike government censorship? The root of this seems to be x refusing the country’s government’s demands to ban certain people

    • shikitohno@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      X doesn’t seem to have any issue censoring accounts for Musk’s autocratic buddies like Erdogan, so let’s not try and pretend that he’s above caving in to government censorship. He’s just pissed off in this case that he’s being asked to do it in a way that would hurt his friends in Brazil. The site has been called out over the last several years multiple times for refusing to take any steps to moderate misinformation spread by Bolsonaro and his political allies in attempts to undermine democracy and influence the results of the last election, like the endless claims of electronic voting being insecure in the lead up to the last elections, Bolsonaro’s COVID denialism and many other examples.

      • flashgnash@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Absolutely not trying to take the side of musk here, dude’s a shitter. Fact of the matter remains the government in this case is using its power to remove people from the public eye, I would dislike that regardless of what platform or who was refusing to do it

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          the government in this case is using its power to remove people from the public eye

          These aren’t people, they’re accounts. And the accounts in question appear to have been coordinating the attack on the Brazilian congressional office in 2023. This is comparable to, say, the traffic on Parlor shortly before the J6 riot in the US.

          Organized violence would not be tolerated as “free speech” in Brazil or the US. No government or civilian authority considers active insurrection a protected category of speech. These accounts were effectively coordinating a military coup. They weren’t just trash talking the new President and his party.

          Blocking traffic from an enemy military force is a military response to a rival military operation. And Musk’s refusal to shut the accounts down amounts to taking a side in a military campaign.

          • flashgnash@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Is it from a foreign country trying to take over? In which case that does change things, had assumed this was some kind of revolution from within the country

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We don’t dislike government censorship of CSAM. it’s all a spectrum based on the legitimacy of the government order and the legitimacy of the tech billionaire’s refusal to abide.

      • flashgnash@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m willing to bet the people that government wanted were not infact posting CSAM, I’m pretty sure even x would ban them of its own volition pretty quickly if they were doing that

        • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They weren’t, it was just the example at the furthest end of the spectrum. But your framing of “if it was REALLY bad, Twitter would ban it” can not be the solution. We have legitimate governments tasked with governing based on the will of the people, it’s not better to just let Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg decide the law.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I thought about that; then I thought what that guy makes in a few minutes’interest on his offshore accounts is probably more than all of Brazil, in a year, and since taxes fund the government and a host of other things, idk

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Leveraged buyouts specifically should be outlawed.

            EDIT: And billionaires should be taxed on the money they receive as loans.

            The “buy borrow die” tax strategy should either be completely outlawed or the government should be able to get portions of those loan payments back as tax money.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Or Brazil. That’s the eight largest economy in the world. They headline BRICS for a reason. Sure, China is the true headliner there, but the fact is that Brazil is included in those 5 countries for a reason (multiple actually). There’s absolutely no way for a single individual to eclipse the value of the world’s 8th largest economy. Pick a country with a lower GDP than Hungary and then we’ll talk

      • hope@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The country of Brazil makes something like 20x Musk’s total net worth, but every year.

  • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If Starlink follows through on its reported vow to ignore the X ban, it is likely to face similar sanctions itself for ignoring a supreme court order.

    That could have a big impact in the Brazilian Amazon, where Starlink antennae have spread rapidly since being made available in September 2022, bringing high-speed internet connection to far-flung regions. By the end of 2023 Starlink antennae were being used in more than 90% of the Amazon’s municipalities, according to BBC Brasil.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/sep/02/brazils-supreme-court-upholds-x-ban-over-conduct

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    On one hand, fuck Musk. On the other hand, internet from space that can’t be blocked by governments is a net positive in my book.

    • servobobo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      How is a billionaire manchild in charge any better, at least a government is accountable to the people.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Controlled by governments or controlled by corpos and the super rich? I say there’s hardly an improvement.

    • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not worth the cost of ruining LEO and the environmental effects of them burning up in the atmosphere

    • ElCanut@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not blockable by any government would be a positive in my book if it didn’t imply bloclable by a single billionaire with huge mood swing. Don’t forget how musk switched off starlink in Crimea at Putin’s request when the Russian realized starlink guided missile were heading towards their ships (Source

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    how are people supposed to pay starlink if their accounts are frozen? is starlink offering free internet?

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So Nazi’s eh? I hate Nazi’s. Let’s unravel this knotted beast a bit. If the Brazilian citizens are posting illegal content, arrest them. Forcefully cut off their internet, -snip snip- done, seize their bank accounts, works on Russia. It should never be the job of a privately owned corporation to enforce the law when the law is perfectly capable of neutralizing the offending entities and enforcing the rules it’s own damn self, are they going to make it illegal for Walmart to sell them a cell phone? Couldn’t they just create a new account with a new email over VPN? Wouldn’t it be easier if the citizens are breaking the law to arrest them rather than take away their Twitter account? I am not a fan of that fat musky sum bitch, but there is literally no reason that judge has to go after X(I really hate that name), other than he’s swinging his dick around and doesn’t like to be told to put some damn underwear on. Arrest the citizens if they are breaking the law, if they aren’t breaking the law then what gives anyone the right to silence them? Just an egomaniac judge with no actual laws backing him and a tiny shvance facing off against a megalomaniac with a tiny shvance that consistently protects only the free speech he agrees with. There. Unknotted. If the people of Brazil want Nazi propaganda to end in a prison sentence, it should be law, and then all Twitter has to do is the same thing it does with other illegal content, turn over the user to the authorities and wash their hands of the mess. Not some judge unilaterally making free speech decisions(even in Brazil)

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s perfectly valid to seize or forbid account that break the law. And if a company facilitates others to break the law you ask them to stop. In this case the company refused to… so now they are in trouble too.

      If Brazil had a law that requires cars to be limited to 100km/h then they need to modify their cars to meet the law. And with ota updates do this in that country. If someone imports a car and it’s not updated even though the manufacturer knows it is in that country, they also breech the law.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Edit: Updated the title to reflect the update in the story. Seeing some comments from people who haven’t actually read the article.

  • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What i love about musk is that he is the best bad example. Maybe someday he’ll start a war with some country and then people will start to understand that no single person or group should hold this much power. Because there are also a handful of other people and groups with the same resources who choose to hide in the background.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    As of 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z, Starlink is now complying with Brazil’s X ban [1].

    References
    1. “Starlink says it will block X in Brazil”. Emma Roth. The Verge. Published: 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z. Accessed: 2024-09-04T04:17Z. https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/3/24235204/starlink-block-x-brazil-comply-elon-musk.

      “We immediately initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court explaining the gross illegality of this order and asking the Court to unfreeze our assets,” Starlink says in a post on X. “Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil.”

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that this IS the blueprint.

      Blocking twitter? That’s fine. People generally hate twitter so whatever.

      But starlink? That is a genuinely okay product (so long as it isn’t too sunny where you live…) and actually does serve a niche for people who can’t get better internet. And it rapidly will go from “The government blocked twitter. I guess that is probably good?” to “The government is taking away internet from thousands of people and this is literally worse than china”

      • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        In this case, assuming Brazil made the right call, I’d look at it more as “Starlink is taking away internet from thousands of people” instead of “the government”. Nobody can or should expect any government to allow businesses to operate within their border that blatantly disregards legal orders. If people lose access to the internet the blame is on Starlink’s hubris, not the government’s insistence on the rule of law.

        That said, I have not been following this story and am cautious enough about Brazil’s government that I’m not taking any stance here over which side is right or wrong.

      • Merlin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah. It’s really sad that a lot of people on remote areas in the Amazon will be affected by a ban on starlink. They also spent quite a bit of money for Brazil’s standards on the equipment as well.

        Still, this shouldn’t be the reason to put anyone above the law, no one should be above a county’s law.

        If this actually happens it may really backfire on Elon and all companies he’s involved, at least in Brazil.

        As you invested your money in one of his companies products and now because of his massive ego/lack of mental stability you either lost support, functionality or access to parts (for maintenance of hardware) and I doubt any of his companies would pay their users for this inconvenience. This would make using any of the products he’s involved with too risky, better to just use a more “mentally stable” competitor even if the service or product is slightly worse.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are assuming people look at this rationally. Rather than “the politicians hate a guy and I suffer”

          It is very similar to the logic by which people go out of their way to bend over backwards to support anti-consumer practices if ti is for the game or movie they want to watch.

  • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This statement was later retracted. The Engadget article was redacted accordingly.