539
submitted 2 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 19 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Yes but it’s a law that is used for internet censorship.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

Then argue against the law, not for a company ignoring the law.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Yes, that’s what is happening here.

[-] madjo@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] trevor 6 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Nobody here ever said otherwise.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

Is shutting down a restaurant because it doesn't comply with food safety restaurant censorship?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

No? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make to me by naming dumb stuff that isn’t censorship.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Unable to connect those dots, huh.

[-] BlueMacaw@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

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 4 points 2 months ago

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 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

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

And if that illegal activity is originating from outside the country and brought in through the dumb pipes then what?

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

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.

However, I'd argue it's effective in the same way that a cannonball is an effective flyswatter.

A cannonball is a terrible fly swatter. Seriously, you would have a hell of a time killing a single fly with a cannonball.

[-] BlueMacaw@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
539 points (100.0% liked)

News

23387 readers
2200 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS