[marcellus777]

for non-Brazilians trying to understand the situation:

(1) a supreme court judge ordered X to remove some political profiles saying they are spreading misinformation

(2) coincidentally (or not) most (if not all) profiles are from the opposition

(3) Elon said that that was censorship and closed the office in Brazil

(4) The judge applied hefty fines but those couldn't be fullfied since X doesnt have a bank account in Brazil anymore

(5) The judge orders a judicial blockage of Starlink's brazilian branch accounts to pay for X fines

(4) Finnally, Brazilian law demands a legal representative (a person who will be liable) and Elon say (very loudly) we would not comply

(5) X is now banned by all means

[robertlagrant]

What's the structural link between X and Starlink?

[Natsu]

Moraes' order claimed they were part of an "economic group" due to Musk's ownership. That's pretty much it.

Since then, Starlink has just said that everyone can have free service for now since they can't get paid anyway. They're in use in a lot of remote areas, like Amazonia, and the Brazilian military came out with a statement the other day saying that they rely on Starlink and if Moraes wants to shut that down, it will screw them over.

[diegoholiveira]

> Moraes' order claimed they were part of an "economic group" due to Musk's ownership.

The problem is that this is not true, the two companies are not part of the same economic group. They are two completely different organizations and even if they were, this type of decision is only made when there is fraud of the type: you owe the government and it is known that you are the owner of a company despite there being no legal connection (i.e., it is in the name of third parties).

It is an absurd decision that shows the world how unsafe it is to invest in Brazil.

[Natsu]

Yeah, I won't defend this decision, it's an unaccountable decision made by a single man who has decided that he personally has the right to decide what people can and cannot say.

I've heard some defend it as "well, that's just how the law is in Brazil" but the same defense could be given for any dictatorship and it's rather telling that even those who advance this as a defense do not even attempt to give an account for why a single person playing judge, jury & executioner is a good way for this to be done.

[marcellus777]

Both are owned by Musk. I know that is too simple, but that is relatively common in Brazil (to easily link companies because they share owners or shareholders)

[diegoholiveira]

It's not common at all.

Musk is shareholder of Starlink, but there are many others. This is kind of thing is only used in cause of fraud like a person who puts other company in name of a third party to avoid fines.

It also shows foreign investors that investing in Brazil is unsafe.

[silverliver]

This is the part that is most interesting to me. Sure, judge will eventually get his way but the secondary collateral damage to Brazil is going to be significant. I wonder if the judge had considered this in his ruling.

[inglor_cz]

Looking at the "block all VPNs" judgment, I wonder if the next step is banning Teslas from the road.