• Faust@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      How about the last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law? Just because someone you do not like is on the receiving end, you should not applaud the authoritarian government.

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

        america has her own supreme court problems to figure out before anyone starts weeping about brazil being mean to elon fucking musk

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because some 300 million people somewhere have problems with their courts, the rest of the world does not matter?

      • Virkkunen@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Man you right wingers are a very annoying bunch, always claiming censorship and loss of democracy while applauding the actual wannabe dictators doing gold medal deserving mental gymnastics to justify antidemocratic actions

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, of course. The guy advocating against censorship and pro freedom of business must be a right winger. You do know, what the real right wingers will do, when they get these instruments into their hands? If not, you will probably find out soon in Brazil.

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

            The same thing that is already happening in Turkey, India and Saudi Arabia? Musk’s Twitter has no problem censoring people when it’s to help right-wing authoritarians.

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

        Care to expand on this?

        Genuinely asking how Elon Musk unilaterally defying a unanimous court order is losing the “last scrap of pretense at democratic rule of law.” Seems like more of the same old oligarchy games like it always has been.

        • Faust@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago
          1. It is a court order for censorship. You may not like what is said on that platform, but it is still straight up suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous. If you do not consider that a problematic move just because you agree with that government for now, you are in for a nasty surprise.
          2. If Brazil wants to shut down the service because of that: That is their right. Welcome to the same club as North Korea, China, and Iran. But what is that move with Starlink? When and where has it become acceptable to seize assets of a company because you have beef with one of its shareholders? What does this signal to other international activities in Brazil?
          • obbeel@lemmy.eco.br
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            When I first learned about it, it kind of seems like school bullying or something criminal. “Give me 50000 if you want to keep operating”. It’s kind of funny, but it is also kind of sad. Anyway, the decision has it geopolitical importance.

          • funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It is not the government defining something as dangerous. It‘s the democratically elected parliament, the democratically elected government and the then appointed judges which rule based on democratically created laws. And if the society comes to the conclusion that hate speech, defamation and lies are not covered by free speech they can of course shut down X and co. And the law applies also to billionaires.

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

            There are standards whereby you can determine something is harmful and not covered by free speech. Like calling for violence against a demographic minority. That’s not either censorship or in bad faith, but upholding standards for a civilized society.
            It’s basically no different than the fact that you are not allowed to kill people in the street.

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

              when people volunteer their confessions, it probably makes jailing, torturing or execution easier. Xitter is a helpful service for the mullahs

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

            Its a shutdown for non-compliance with a law.

            The law in non-compliance is an attempt to shut down misinformation related to an election where x refused to appoint a court representative. Rather than fight the battle in court they chose to just shut down brazil changing x from a brazil represented company to basically a purely foreign company similar to RT in the US.

            Like there’s a difference between showing up to court to fight for free speech and shutting down your offices so you can’t argue your case.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            suppression of anything the government defines as dangerous

            That’s kind of one of the points of having a government… When it’s applied to banning toxic chemicals or violence, that’s the same thing happening but you just wouldn’t call it censorship.

      • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Phew, I thought I was the only one here lol. This whole situation has me wondering what Brazil is trying to do that they’re so afraid will be talked about on X.

      • ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s pretty simple: did Elon design a legal representative as asked by the judge?

        He could have avoided this, but he thought he was above the law, and guess what? He’s not.

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

    Instead of creating a law. The supreme court creates precedence. So in Democratic republics the judicial branch can do as they please? No. Their whole damn courts unhinged. Apparently the whole damn judicial branch is crooked. Why does the supreme court of Brazil have to get it’s nose involved in silencing citizens on PLATFORMS!?!?!?!? JUST ARREST THE CITIZENS!!! BUT APPARENTLY THEY WANT TO ATTACK CORPORTATIONS AND LEAVE THE PROBLEMATIC CITIZENS ALONE! Throw musk in a deep pit, but do it for a damn good reason like he doesn’t pay a living wage.

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

      The court is doing its job, X is not. Businesses should adhere to the country’s law. They can’t pick and choose what to obey or not obey and not expect to take the heat. Elon Musk’s decision to ignore the order was childish and only caused more harm to itself.

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

      Doesn’t matter. The morons that follow musk already have a mindset of us vs them. All of Brazil is they whether one judge or a Supreme Court. Trump was found guilty by a jury co-selected by his own lawyers. But they were rigged against him. Even the lawyers probably. It doesn’t matter.

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

        Even the lawyers probably

        That’s what happens when you’re on your 15th-string team because you keep firing and/or not paying people.

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

    I wonder why EU is dragging their feet for so long, when Xitter clearly doesn’t comply with regulation.
    They’ve been giving warnings, but nothing else yet?
    Also it kind of pisses me off, when public organisations and politicians that claim to defend democracy still use Xitter.
    They are using and helping a platform that clearly has as a goal to undermine democracy.

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

      Because opposition parties generally have their groups in there, which would cause political backlash and distance the supporters that still use it. Not that banning social networks abusing their privilege through hidden moderation and promotion and selling their user’s data so propagandist know who and how to target shouldn’t be done, but right know it would be done under the counter-chants of “repression” in the particular cold war 2.0 state of affairs of the world today, and that’s very politically taxing.

  • Teknikal@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Read starlink refuses to block it in Brazil, now I’m curious if that gets banned or somehow blocked although I can’t imagine how.

    • pickleprattle@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      “He added that individuals or businesses that are found to still be accessing X by using virtual private networks (VPNs) could be fined R$50,000 ($8,910; £6,780).”

      Pretty sure that will include Starlink.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The most they can really do is block payments, but even then, plenty of people would have access to foreign currency or bitcoin, so it wouldn’t be that effective. Elon’s also the kind of guy to start giving it away for free just to piss off Brazil’s government more.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        They can shut down the ground stations in Brazil, but they can’t block the laser links. They could also try to jam the signals, but SpaceX now has years of experience working around jamming in a war zone.

      • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        They can revoke Starlinks license to operate within the country; then issue arrest warrants for its operators.

        The US has an extradition treaty with Brazil.