Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

190 points

Why does the weird one think that he should have more power than a government?

permalink
report
reply
70 points

Daddy didn’t say no enough?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Or he said no too much?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Not to his step daughter/baby mama

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

His life experiences? Having that much money and power really fucks with someone’s perceptions of the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Why does the weird one think that he should have more power than a government?

Because he quite literally does in a lot of cases. When is he ever punished?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I’m scared of the day Amazon realises they actually do have more power than the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

They absolutely do not. It is genuinely shocking how many people in this thread fail utterly at comprehending the scale of the power wielded by the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

It’s called the government cloud. Where do you think it runs. Amazon could bring a LOT of TLA agencies to their knees pretty quickly if they so chose

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

They key is to weld that power but not get caught doing it, then along came Elon…

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Amazon may have more power than some tiny countries, but not the US govt as your comment would imply

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Because obviously the benevolent billionaire will do so much more good to the world than an evil government specifically elected by the will of the people. (/s)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

He absolutely shouldn’t, but isn’t this just a dick swinging contest by both Brazil and Musk?

I haven’t been following it but banning an entire website because they don’t have a ‘legal representative’ in your country sounds bizarre.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.

Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.

Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”

So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

It is when the law says that for a company to operate in Brazil it has to have an appointed legal representative, and you close down your offices and refuse to re-appoint one when the judge demands you to.
Musk entered a “No pants no service” restaurant, took his pants off, was told to put them back on and refused, and is now surprised he gets no service.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I don’t know what you thought I said to begin your comment with ‘it is’, because if you’re agreeing it’s a dick swinging contest, then the rest of your comment seems strange.

Anyway, fair enough - like I said, I have not been following it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Shut down the offices and evacuated employees when threatened with arrest. There’s a whole lot more to this story…

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I think that’s a bit reductive.

It’s fair enough to expect a large company to have a rep to attend court if they want to do business in your country.

If they refuse then it becomes a “rule of law” situation - even if it’s a dumb law, you can’t have a multinational disregard the court’s instructions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It was banned because they refused to comply with anti-hate speech policies. According to musk, moderating his platform would be “political persecution” against those poor nazis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

I’m on side with Elon and Radio Caroline in this issue.

He’s not broadcasting from inside Brazil’s borders, so the regulators can get stuffed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The ground antennas that enable the service totally broadcast from inside Brazil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They can disable them, they can jam them too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

On 3 March 1968, the radio ships Mi Amigo and Caroline were boarded and seized before the day’s broadcasting began. They were towed to Amsterdam by a salvage company to secure unpaid bills for servicing by the Dutch tender company Wijsmuller Transport.[6] Caroline was broken up for scrap in 1972.[21]

Looks like being in an international area doesn’t actually make you immune to consequences. If Brazil doesn’t want something broadcasting then the only way to keep them from shutting it down is to broadcast from inside a national area. If push comes to shove they can ban Starlink too, confiscate any receivers they can find, and even shoot down the satellites.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

The satellites may be carrying starshields on them which are national security modules with the DoD. Shooting down the wrong satellite would be attacking US national defense infrastructure.

Nevermind starshields are whole DoD satellites.

I think when I read this, I replaced starshield with starlink

the ability to put a wide variety of instruments on the Starshield satellite bus

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There are 6350 Starlink satellites in orbit. Dude launches 60 of them at a time, has FCC permission for 12,000, and plans to launch another 30,000.

Brazil has about 12. They can threaten to shoot down Starlink satellites, but they lack the capacity to actually do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

shoot down the satellites.

I guess enjoy immediate war from the US?

permalink
report
parent
reply
160 points

He really thinks he is above the law.

Why can’t musk get stranded in space like these astronauts at ISS. We would all be better off.

permalink
report
reply
20 points
*

I mean to be fair, Starlink is a satellite network.

Edit: this is a shitty Dad joke for those that are taking my comment seriously.

Most of you don’t deserve your humor license if you have one

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

To be more fair, Brazil is a sovereign country, Starlink is not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

What part of the joke aren’t you getting???

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points
*

No I mean it’s literally a satellite network. It’s in orbit.

It’s above the law. Literally.

Edit: a lot of people whooshing this. How? It’s so fucking simple.

Orbit = Space. Brazil = Earth.

Space altitude > Brazil Altitude.

Orbit is literally above guys. Like come the fuck on. It’s a funny joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yeah, and they can do in space whatever they want (probably). But if they want to operate on earth providing a service within a country, they have to abide by the law of this country or stay out of it.

It’s like American Internet companies have to follow EU law if they want to operate in the EU, even if the company itself or their servers are in the US. GDPR privacy laws is a good example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Oh my god how is this joke that fucking difficult to understand

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

He’s good for absolutely nothing in this world. The only true altruistic path for him would be euthanasia and donating his water to the tribe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

He’s arguing that it’s illegal because they are separate entities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Supreme Court ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X

If Starlink refuses to comply or hinders others to comply, they are in contempt to the Supreme Court orders.
As long as this order is within the law, it shouldn’t matter if Starlink and X are connected or not.

And even if they are in orbit “above” the law, the ruling is only about their operating in brazil not about the satellite itself. And their operations within the country of Brazil do have to comply with Brazilian law and courts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.

The issue of freezing star link accounts predates this shut down and was the result of some issue with x.

I’ve got no love for musk, but if the government is going after starlink because they have issues with x, it’s hard for me to disagree with him when he calls this dictator like. And thus it’s hard for me to fault him for using it as leverage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The order to block Twitter went to all Brazilian ISPs, and Starlink is the only one that didn’t comply on Saturday. So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey, but the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in, and why the Brazilian courts seem to be willing to aggressively enforce their own orders.

Edit: I’m convinced. This comment as originally written presented the facts out of order.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey

You’ve got it backwards. Right in the article, it notes “The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.” The escalation of Starlink not complying comes from that, not the other way around.

ut the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in

Again, seemingly backwards. It was the government of Brazil that used their “intertwined nature” to freeze Starlink accounts, and Musk has, in turned, used that “intertwine nature” as leverage.

To be clear, I hate defending Musk, but I don’t see why it makes sense to freeze Startlink accounts if it’s X that hasn’t paid the fines. Can they go after any company that he owns stock in? Can they start seizing Teslas? How about MS infrastructure, if he holds some ownership in that company too? I’m just not sure the government of Brazil is on the right side of this, and not simply using their power to punish Musk. If people said “I don’t really care and I’m glad they are holding his feet to the fire” that would be one thing, but people are arguing that it’s actually Musk who is doing all of this, while it appears that it’s actually the Brazilian government that “intertwined” them and Musk just responding in kind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Well, technically… he is- until proven otherwise. But so far, it hasn’t happened.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Innocent until proven otherwise?

I think you get something mixed up here. Innocence is not the same as being above the law. Innocence means you didn’t do anything outside the law.

And it’s a fact, that Starlink and X defied orders of the Supreme Court. I wonder what you think must be proven here?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think you got something mixed up here. I never said he was innocent. I said he is above the law until proven otherwise. The guy hasn’t suffered a consequence for a single action.

Until he does- he IS above the law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

he’s above the law because he will not experience legal consequences.

permalink
report
parent
reply
105 points

And starlink also gets banned from the country

Tesla next?

permalink
report
reply
63 points
*

the problem is starlink is actually a good thing, providing decent internet access to places that can’t get it otherwise. I think the thing to target is the clear collusion going on between companies in ostensibly unrelated industries to pressure a government into reversing a penalty on one of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
83 points

I think the thing to target is the clear collusion going on between companies in ostensibly unrelated industries to pressure a government into reversing a penalty on one of them.

Specifically because they are controlled by the same asshat. This is the same exact type of shit he does with stock manipulation and why he was eventually forced to buy Twitter. All his wealth has been generated by cheating and exploitation. I hope Brazil drops the hammer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Compounding fines would be a nice touch. Then send in the lawyers to actually break the money free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points
*

Putting up tens of thousands of extra objects into orbit that we now have to track and worry about collisions with other satellites is not a good thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Not to mention that their orbits degrades over time so they have to be continually replenished. That comes at a huge cost which is highly subsidized by US tax payers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Also, each satelite that burns up upon re-entry isn’t just gone - it still introduces vaporized materials into the upper atmosphere.

Iirc they are harming the ozone layer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Starlink is a ridiculous centralized solution to what should be solved by upgrading fiber networks.

It’s a bandaid with limited usefulness after maybe a decade. Basically an exercise in generating space junk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

In a lot of cases I would agree with you, but laying fiber optic cable through the Amazon in order to connect remote settlements is not feasible, starlink really does have a good use case there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points
*

clear collusion

It’s less so “collusion” than it is “a billionaire brat using their obscene wealth and plethora of businesses to strong arm their way out of any accountability”. We can’t consider starlink a “good thing” because it will always be part of that, and any group or government relying on it to any degree should take note.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Nah, Starlink itself is bad, the intention is good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

what specifically is “bad” about it? I understand people are concerned about space junk, but it seems worth the benefit to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Can it be a good thing while it’s controlled by someone so clearly looking to exploit it’s influence for personal gain?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How would you do that though? The whole point is the signal is coming from a satellite

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Starlink’s bank accounts are frozen. Musk loves money more than providing service. I doubt he’ll provide the service for free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Need to ship receivers to customers and those could be seized at customs if they’re illegal radio equipment.

Then, new customers would need a VPN to sign up, and old customers might have trouble renewing with local payment methods

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Why bother when you can just prevent Starlink from collecting any money?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points

The comments here are weird TBH. No, Brazil will not start shooting down satellites. It can just simply outlaw and sanction Starlink, stop anyone from paying Starlink for their internet subscription, and have peeps go around and confiscate ground stations.

Also, they can just go and ask the US to help enforce their ruling, telling them “do you want to be friends with us or Musky boi?”

permalink
report
reply
21 points

That’s a really good point. Starlink can ignore this order, but the courts can order banks to stop processing payments to them. Pretty sure Starlink isn’t going to “protest” this at the cost of profits.

Of rourse Starlink could then go be further shady by taking payments in Bitcoin to get around it. It’s an interesting arms race to follow.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Brazil is well within its rights to sanction Starlink and prosecute people for evading said sanctions, and have people pay fines and go to prison for buying Starlink with Bitcoin.

Just like the US does with Iran and Cuba.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How would they know it’s been paid by Bitcoin?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Unfortunately, the US is now fully reliant on SpaceX for access to space now that they decided to rely on corporate spacecraft rather than building our own and Boeing has proven themselves unreliable since that change was made, and now that they finally have a craft they ended up stranding astronauts on the space station until SpaceX can rescue them due to defects. Plus we can’t use Russia like we did after the shuttle program ended but corporate space travel wasn’t there yet. And SpaceX isn’t publicly traded to where it might be possible that enough investors could pressure Musk to cave.

So I doubt anything will come of it. Brazil will rattle their sabers. Musk will stand his ground, and the US will stay on Musk’s side while pretending as much as possible to be staying out of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Haha, that sort of dependency can be just as dangerous for a company as it is for the state. You start fucking around like that and antitrust and defense production act start knocking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Is there precedent for the US government just flat out nationalizing a company like SpaceX?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Don’t have to. Defense production act allows them to legally direct the company without owning it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No 737 has ever leaked helium. So why did the Star liner leak helium? Why couldn’t it just pop an emergency exit hatch mid flight like standard procedure? Why? Why? So many questions!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Easier than than just freeze musks money in brazil

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points

I wonder what would happen if a Brazilian company failed to comply with a US court order.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

There would already be boots on the ground.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They may get forbidden from operating in the US? Like, the same thing, in reverse?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They’d be getting ready for some FREEDOM!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 283K

    Comments