Don't forget that Musk is also the one who intentionally blocked paid service from Ukraine during a critical moment in the early days of Russia's current genocide, because Musk sucks up to Putin. Dude needs to answer for his actions.

that depends on who controls the space internet

How about internet that can be blocked at the whims of a billionaire? At least government is supposed to answer to the people.

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

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

Oh? What about internet controlled by a billionaire who makes sure his toxic website featuring his version of “free speech” is always available to protect his profits and spread his bullshit while undermining the policies of a sovereign state?

So much better than the evil government.

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

Can't calculate the net yet, since we don't know the gross. He has the capability to cause massive damage with the power he wields. It's already clear that he's incapable of providing an unbiased platform. It needs to belong to the people or it can never be trusted

That’s an arbitrary metric. What about internet across oceans, or across forests? Blocking content is a question of why and what. Shouldn’t we be able to block child exploitation websites? That is to say, of course we can, and it’s very easy. The only question is whether you want that kind of censorship to be up to your service provider or your government.

The Corporate Wars. 🥲

This is the intersection of Xitter and SpaceX and it looks like Xitter takes priority.

Seems like it's on the table

https://www.reuters.com/technology/brazils-supreme-court-chamber-forms-majority-uphold-x-suspension-2024-09-02/

Tensions between Brazil and Elon Musk's business empire ratcheted up further as the country's telecoms regulator threatened to sanction his satellite broadband company Starlink hours after its top court stood behind a controversial decision to ban social network X from the country.

A senior official at telecommunications regulator Anatel said sanctions against Starlink for noncompliance could include the revocation of its license to operate in Brazil.

As the article says, yes.

Supposedly Starlink is maintaining service for existing accounts, even if they can't bill them ATM.

Somehow I don't think that'll last all that long.

**Update, September 3, 5:15PM ET: **Starlink has reversed course on its decision to not comply with Brazil’s block of X.

Try typing the word "cisgender" into Twitter.

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.

It is well established that the right to free speech is NOT unlimited, and the "fire in a crowded theater" people tend to be the loudest complainers. Brazil is a sovereign nation entitled to its own interpretation of how to handle free speech protections, and X has repeatedly made the claim they obey the laws of the countries in which it operates.

Also, it's disingenuous of anybody to take X's side on this over free speech when the past two years they have complied with basically every single request from every government for personal identifying information for any user. People are serving multi-decade prison sentences for their speech because X has refused to stand up to, for example, the government of Saudi Arabia when demanding the identities of state critics.

So it's okay to kowtow to governments when they want to violate the right to privacy, but not when they want to shut down speech which is outside a sovereign nation's definition of free speech? And let's be clear - we were talking about 7 users.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's reasonable for a company to violate ONE right for a government under absolutely unethical circumstances and not another under SLIGHTLY debatable circumstances and expect anybody to take your position seriously. X is not a freedom fighter, and it's not an actor for justice. It's a partisan cesspool run by a man who is stacking the deck for the side he wants when it serves his interests.