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.”
If they flout the law of those countries, they will. And they should.
Social media companies do not get to be above government because they are social media companies. The government’s actions are the actions taken by the representatives chosen by the people in free and fair elections. THAT is where the people’s voice matters. Not on an opaque social media platform. If a car company decides they think a government safety restriction is wrong, they don’t get to NOT implement it. If they do, they get shut down. Social media companies are NO different.
No company with no accountability to anyone but its shareholders should EVER be above a government of the people. Do you want a dystopia? Because that’s how you get a dystopia.
So if it’s not a company it’s fine? So, Lemmy is good right? Or if Lemmy starts (haha) being used to distribute propaganda a government decides is against them, you are totally onboard with shutting it down?
This is the danger. Propaganda is not the issue. Illegal speech is. Speech that incites violence, reveals classified information, or endangers innocent people.
Lemmy is not a company, but if, for example, Lemmy starts posting the names, addresses, and home security details of Brazilian officials, you can rest assured they would block those instances as well.
X being a single corporate entity gives it different responsibilities because it operates as a business, but either way, the platform flouting the law will and should be blocked. Free speech is not a free-for-all and has limitations.
Speech that could overthrow a totalitarian regime could fall under that definition, yet I wouldn’t consider it a bad thing.
You are correct.
Brazil is not a totalitarian regime. The resistance to deplatforming in this case isn’t the same as, say, resisting deplatforming democracy activists in Taiwan, which X would likely not do.
The context matters. Brazil is a democratic nation with checks and balances that has defined what it considers illegal speech. X is of course, entitled to disagree with that assessment. And Brazil is free to correctly assess that X is not following its laws and ban it from operating there. That’s all there is to it. If the Brazilian people think the government’s definition of illegal speech is wrong, this government will be booted out in the next election. It’s that simple.
Did they ban truth social?
First of all, who are “they” in this scenario?
Because I don’t think you mean the Brazilian government, because it’s relatively obvious.
There is no need to ban or censure speech for reasons of inciting violence if it doesn’t have a big enough audience to actually do that.
And secondly, Truth Social’s tiny audience is almost completely US citizens, who generally speaking don’t speak or understand Portuguese, and the network doesn’t officially operate in the country in any capacity.
The Brazilian government banned X (Twitter)
Twitter is an international company that officially operates in multiple countries in multiple languages with large numbers of users in those countries. Truth social is a tiny media network operating in a single country in essentially one language. I don’t believe for a second you don’t understand the difference, and it is such a silly and irrelevant thing to bring into this conversation that I can only conclude you aren’t arguing in good faith at this point, and you’re just trying to waste my time. You have a good one.