545
Musk's Starlink backtracks and says it will comply with judge's order to block X in Brazil (apnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent