Starlink tells Brazil regulator it will not comply with X suspension
Posted by Naurgul@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 47 comments
Posted by Naurgul@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 47 comments
giant_shitting_ass@reddit
People on Reddit really need to learn to separate their feelings towards rocket man and general principals towards speech.
Would you accept a similar judgement against Facebook from India? Against Reddit from Israel? Against TikTok from the US?
nothingtoseehr@reddit
I simply don't see how blocking Twitter specifically counts as violating freedom of speech. Twitter is a company and a platform like any other, you can simply use any other platform available, no one is stopping you. Your freedom of speech isn't being violated because a company that happened to be a social media got shafted due to ignoring laws. This isn't just fearmongering like tiktok in the us, musk is deliberately acting in bad faith very openly
giant_shitting_ass@reddit
That's like saying shutting down the NYT doesn't violate freedom of the press because it's just one newspaper and people have other options 🤦
nothingtoseehr@reddit
If someone was shutting down the NYT because of an article that someone wrote yeah sure, but if it's being shut down because of idk tax fraud it's not a violation of freedom of speech. Companies aren't immune to doing whatever they want because of freedom of speech lol
giant_shitting_ass@reddit
Yeah but in this case specifically it boils down to refusal to remove content.
HandsOffMyMacacroni@reddit
Because the platform was banned specifically because of the kind of speech that people were using it to spread. In the same way that revoking event permits for right wing groups explicitly because you don’t like their speech and then saying “just meet somewhere else” would be a violation of free speech (as a principle).
nothingtoseehr@reddit
They were spreading fake insurrectionist bullshit about the attempted coup and a bunch of other topics, that barely classifies as speech. And I dont give a fuck that revoking an event permit for a neonazi rally would violate free speech, that has no place in society
I think what most people in this kind of discussion don't realize is that being able to prioritize freedom like that is a privilege. Most countries in LATAM (or the 3rd world in general, really) have already experienced a coup (or multiple) and insane brutal regimes, and they weren't that long ago
So people have a much higher tolerance for "censorship" because well, we know the horrors of these regimes, and they're always one step closer than we think. I had to take my mom to ER when she saw congress being invaded because she was having a panic attack
I don't give a fuck that the christofascists are crying over their deleted tweet posts after trying to overtake a country because their favorite moron lost an election. You either respect democracy or you're against it
TrumpsGrazedEar@reddit
Damn, you got their asses so good.
giant_shitting_ass@reddit
6 months ago Reddit was bitching about the TikTok ban and how repealing sec 230 is fascism and how age verification for porn sites is is invasive and how free speech means a private platform can do whatever it wants.
Andp I'm certain Reddit will suddenly switch sides against internet regulation the next time a right wing government (ikely Trump) tries to hold websites accountable.
Redditors have no principles, just knee jerk reactions that align with whatever issue of the week they've come across
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
It depends, I don't think "free speech" can be used as an excuse for tech giants to completely avoid any and all regulation.
giant_shitting_ass@reddit
The regulation in question is requesting an ISP for a Chinese style site ban. Reddit railed against these bans when Pakistan, Turkey, India and others did it.
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
The regulation was to ban some far-right users who were cheering for a coup. Because Twitter refused that and refused to even appoint a legal representative, the judge ordered the app to be taken down.
AdHominemMeansULost@reddit
He is a sitting parliament member not "some far right user"
You lied in the other threads in /r/greece too and never admitted you're wrong when you were presented with the fact you never responded.
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
I said "some far-right users", plural. The "some" was meant to denote it was a small number of them. Not that they were nobodies.
Lots of people explained to you why your definition of whataboutism was problematic in that thread, including myself. If you don't like it, go re-read the wikipedia article instead of harassing me in random subreddits.
AdHominemMeansULost@reddit
I have no idea what whataboutism you're talking about, I'm talking about this
https://imgur.com/a/dPVTw29
Admit you're wrong.
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
You're not entitled to get an answer to every comment you make, you know. In this particular case I didn't even see your reply. And it doesn't even address the main point I was making so I'm not sure why you're so full of yourself?
Stop being so entitled to replies you follow people in different subs to harass them into responding to you.
AdHominemMeansULost@reddit
my only sentence in that message directly addresses your point what are you even on about.
this is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time your logic gets proven wrong you deflect or just don't reply lol.
StukaTR@reddit
and that is okay, countries don't have to have American style freedom of speech laws. Onus there is on Twitter or Starlink if they want to do business in Brazil, not the other way around.
Kyomeii@reddit
Is the censorship of a journalist's 16 yo daughter regulation?
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
They were asked to ban the fanatical supporters of Bolsonaro a far-right politician who staged a coup. These guys literally were cheering for the coup. Twitter not only refused to ban them but also refused to appoint a legal representative in the country. Nothing to do with anyone's daughter.
Anyway, the guy above implied that the company's right to free speech always supersedes any country's regulation, which is what I was replying to, not the specifics of the Brazil case.
PS: Also if I may add, it's laughable that twitter pretends to be a platform for limitless free speech. It only allows stuff that Musk agrees with. That's not free speech.
bobcollege@reddit
None of them are free speech, not a one. They are not being banned or proposed to ban because they're 'free speech'. That's a generalization and misleads the conversation.
I would accept all those bans though, fuck em.
AyyLimao42@reddit
Well, I guess that is another of Elon's companies out of here then. I honestly have so many questions:Â
Why even bother showing up here if you're not going to follow our laws?
What is he even trying to achieve with this mess? He's been tweeting a lot, trying to make the Brazilian judiciary look tyrannical. People are not going to rise up because of Twitter and Starlink lol.
Majestic_IN@reddit
Na, one year give or take and these two companies will silently comply with all laws. There's money to make and not twitter is not doing good these days in terms of advertisements.
ighost03@reddit
Yeah, but Elon is an idiot with a massive ego. Is he really big enough to do what best for his company, knowing people will witness his cave in?
Runatyr9@reddit
Honestly I’d be surprised if it takes even a year
katherinesilens@reddit
It's just as long as it takes for the sub-executives to feel confident that Elon has forgotten the issue and moved the focus of his ego elsewhere
MauroLopes@reddit
With all honesty, that's the most likely outcome. Something similar happened some years ago with Telegram.
Apprehensive_Emu9240@reddit
Muskie better watch out. If he continues down this road his platform will get banned in many more countries.
superpie12@reddit
Not following unconstitutional edicts from a fascist idiot is what good protestors do.
austeremunch@reddit
He's literally funding, platforming, and endorsing a fascist idiot in the US.
PatPeez@reddit
He's too used to America where the rich don't have to follow any laws.
Kyomeii@reddit
He just forgot to bribe the government
austeremunch@reddit
We call it gratuity in the US now. Thanks SCOTUS for that gem of a decision this year in that fetid pool of raw sewage they called a term.
karlub@reddit
Lulz.
Brazil has one of the worst income disparity rates in the world. Hell, the information name for having bad income disparity in a first world nation is "Brazilification."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/income-inequality-by-country
PerunVult@reddit
I guess on an off-chance you manage to strongarm local government into concessions, with, or without, help of your own government.
Levitz@reddit
Kinda the other way around, these are from 4 days ago:
https://advanced-television.com/2024/08/30/starlink-banned-in-brazil/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240829-brazil-judge-musk-standoff-intensifies-as-starlink-assets-frozen
The move to not comply is most likely a response to this. Freeze the assets of another, different company? Makes sense to then to something that would warrant an asset freeze.
MrBrazillian@reddit
Maybe putting fuel into the fire to raise another protest wave for a coup? I'd put my money on that. Guess having niobium nowadays is all that it takes to relativize the need for a democracy.
In any case, if an American billionaire manages to put Brazilians on the streets, again, in defense of other nations interests, well, fuck me, we're doomed.
Fun-Interaction-7797@reddit
American technology is so obviously compromised. Especially by the dragnet surveillance programs of their Three Letter Agencies, so why would any country who would want to remain independent allow these corporations to operate within their countries when these Three Letter Agencies have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to implement so called "Regime-Change/Colour-Revelolutions", which they do via Social Media Propaganda, if said country deviates so much as a hair's breadth from American foreign policy. Which in truth only benefits these warmongering sociopathic corporations based out of London/New York?
Shillbot_9001@reddit
The problem is this isn't a rebuke of such abuses, it's an attempt to strong arm the companies doing it to let them in on it.
Fun-Interaction-7797@reddit
Good point. Brazil power brokers reserve the right to censor their own discourse without outside interference. All the nonsense about Twitter X being a platform of free speech and Musk throwing his toys out of the cot, are a load of bollocks. There are no benevolent actors in this... just ordinary people getting Shafted...left, right and center.
D4nCh0@reddit
Because social media is already so pervasive. The politicians in my country largely communicate by Facebook. Since nobody bothers with state owned media anymore.
But not every country has the resources & political will to build & run their own social media platforms. Chinese social media comes with its own set of problems too.
DetectiveFinch@reddit
How does this work on a technical and legal level? X is banned in Brazil, but if you use Starlink or VPNs, you can still use it. So are the Brazilian regulators also going after other ISP's and VPN's? Or is it just about Starlink because they made a public statement about it?
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
In theory, they said they'll issue fines to anyone who uses a VPN to access twitter. In practice I think they can't/won't actually be able to prevent people from accessing the site via VPN.
Demonking3343@reddit
Well I think we can all agree all that’s going to accomplish is getting Both companies banned from Brazil. Though this opinion is too short for the word count. If only I could make up a few more sentences to fill in the gaps.
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
Tesla motors? I doubt he will get the same kind of protectionist tariffs he demands from western countries, so maybe he does something stupid to get it banned from here so he can spread some bullshit about the brazilian government having being bought by BYD instead of admiting he can't compete with them.
Dimas166@reddit
BYD is building a billion dollar factory complex in Brazil, they will be the biggest players by far soon
Either-Arachnid-629@reddit
The members of the Supreme Court are probably thankful for this response, as members of the legislature were questioning their decision to disregard the distinction between legal entities with the same owner (a possibility clearly stated in the caput of Article 314 of our Code of Civil Procedure, approved in 2015) that is being willfully ignored by right-wing congressmen raging against the Court.