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.”
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.
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.
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.
Yes but it’s a law that is used for internet censorship.
Then argue against the law, not for a company ignoring the law.
Yes, that’s what is happening here.
Not really, as X refused to argue it in court, the place where this argument should have taken place.
Whatever we Lemmings think about this ruling is unimportant to the actual rulers. We can argue about that till we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change a thing. So it’s pointless.
X had a chance to assount legal representation. They refused, and as a consequence, the entire website got blocked. It’s their own fault.
You can’t open a restaurant that doesn’t comply with food safety law. This is a “skill issue” on Musk’s part. Not censorship.
Nobody here ever said otherwise.
Is shutting down a restaurant because it doesn’t comply with food safety restaurant censorship?
No? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make to me by naming dumb stuff that isn’t censorship.
Unable to connect those dots, huh.
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?
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.
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.
Agreed.
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.
And if that illegal activity is originating from outside the country and brought in through the dumb pipes then what?
Great question. I don’t know.
I think most would agree though, that the absence of a good solution does not justify a poor solution.
I guess that anyone in the country who seeks out and obtains the illegal content is committing a crime, so the government could go after them through traditional means. (Although seriously, are we really going to punish regular people for accessing a social media site?)
Admittedly, banning an entire website at the ISP is far more effective. However, I’d argue it’s effective in the same way that a cannonball is an effective flyswatter.
I think most would agree that you shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it superior to doing nothing? Definately.
A cannonball is a terrible fly swatter. Seriously, you would have a hell of a time killing a single fly with a cannonball.
Because it’s literally what’s happening? X has not named a legal representative in Brazil. Therefore it cannot do business in Brazil. Thus, all ISPs are ordered to block X so that it cannot do business in Brazil. (same link). Starlink, as an ISP, said they would not comply. Now they are complying. This has literally nothing to do with internet speech and everything to do with complying with a country’s laws.