Sorry, I was asking in context of OP "The only speech this man wants to be free is his own.", seems like there is no evidence of him bringing this statement into effect, I was looking for such evidence, as in: He blocked someone by himself for himself.
It appears that Musk is currently aligned with more extreme right wing conservative voices, he appears to tweet and retweet in their support, he blocks the oposition of such governments in Turkey and India, he more recently seems to support both Trump and Bolsonaro, both right wing election deniers who encouraged attempts to overthrow elections.
I have no particular insight into Musk, I speak only to the observation that he appears to support some voices over others and as such that is "his voice" - those who say things he supports and whose opponents he blocks.
I think the point is that he shouldn’t lie about selective “free speech” in Brazil he seems all for it to the point of getting kicked out of the country. With more friendly regimes he is happy to censor other voices than the official “state”voice. I think people are looking for consistency and honesty rather than the charade his currently projecting.
"This is at least the fifth time that X, under Musk, has purged accounts that are the slightest bit critical of him, his friends, or causes he supports"
If these are the best examples of Musk engaging in censorship then he must be doing a very fair job indeed!
A more likely explanation is that the suspensions were related to anti-botting activity, as they came back from suspension with fewer followers than before. Journalists buying Twitter followers is not unheard of, unfortunately:
As the past two years of Twitter's evolution have shown, more power to Elon Musk actually leads to more censorship.
He's running the social media service like a kingdom where lèse-majesté is the gravest offense, promoting himself and blocking any topics that he doesn't personally like (including the existence of his own daughter who posts on Threads now).
Old Twitter had flawed content moderation processes, but at least there was a process.
Police showing up at 6am to search your house because you happened to be in whatsapp group where someone else joked about a coup is definitely violence.
Yes, I do. That's precisely my point. It's based on law. Brazil is a democratic country. The law is the will of the people, or at least it is as much as bullshit USA-based representative democracy goes. Still much closer to the will of the people than Musk's personal opinions and whims.
Debtors generally have no direct authority over management decisions unless the borrower defaults. So legally speaking, someone with majority voting control over a company can pretty much run it any way he pleases. (I am clarifying corporate governance rules here, not taking a position on recent management decisions.)
> Lèse-majesté or lese-majesty (UK: /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɪsti/ leez MAJ-ist-ee, US: /ˌleɪz -/ layz - )[1][2][3] is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant 'a crime against the Crown'. In classical Latin, laesa māiestās meant 'hurt/violated majesty' or 'injured sovereignty' (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch).[2][3]
What illegal actions? I did some research instead of blindly following our so-called genius who claims it's against Brazilian constitutional law because Starlink is a separate entity. It actually appears to be perfectly legal and in line with the law.
"However, Brazilian law, specifically the Civil Code and the Consumer Defense Code, includes a mechanism known as "desconsideração da personalidade jurídica" (piercing the corporate veil). This legal principle allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a company in cases where there is evidence of fraud, misuse of the corporate form, or abuse of rights.
If an owner uses multiple companies in a way that is fraudulent or meant to evade the law, the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the owner and their other companies liable. This means that if there is a proven link between the misconduct in Company A and other companies owned by the same person, those other companies could potentially be affected."
And where is the proven link between X and Starlink?
Edit: My comment may have sounded stupid because obviously Musk ownership is a link between both companies though this isn't by itself a valid reason to pierce the corporate veil in Brazilian law. The fundamental criteria is patrimonial confusion and so far I've not seem evidence that X operation was intertwined with Starlink. The only thing is the self-fulfilling hypothesis that people will use Starlink to circumvent the blocking of X.
The court orders for Twitter in Brazil were way more tame and based on judicial procedures than orders that Elon followed from Turkey and other less democratic countries.
There's no visible rhyme or reason why he's fighting the Brazilian courts much harder than orders from other less democratic countries, something else is happening unrelated to free speech or any lip service he pays to.
But OTOH it is pointless to 'fight' the judicial system of e.g. Russia, or flawed democracies like Turkey which stage a coup. OTOH brazil is somewhat more democratic and it makes sense to appeal to their democratic institutions.
<Mandatory "i don't like elon" to avoid flagging />
> But OTOH it is pointless to 'fight' the judicial system of e.g. Russia, or flawed democracies like Turkey which stage a coup. OTOH brazil is somewhat more democratic and it makes sense to appeal to their democratic institutions.
Even when giving Elon some leeway to have reasonable doubt I still believe the argument falls flat when he attempts to coat it with his "free speech defender" persona against Brazil but not against dictatorships.
If he's willing to challenge Brazilian courts to the point where Twitter becomes unavailable to the public why wouldn't he do the same in places with much less freedom of speech?
It simply doesn't make sense using his public rationale, if he was a free speech absolutist he wouldn't allow Twitter to exist in places where free speech is impossible and is gagged by dictators' court orders. He's fighting Brazilian courts way too hard given his stance on Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Is he a puppet? Has he ulterior motives in Brazil? We can't really know from public information but that there's something fishy and wrong going under wraps, it is.
Somebody made a case in an earlier thread (that I haven't had time to pursue) that Brazil has the largest lithium mining company (not fields or mines) with standing contracts in South America .. and they claimed that Musk wants to seed unrest | see Bolsonaro (or his party) back in to get a better deal on raw materials for his battery factories in Texas.
That has a plausible ring to it (but, again, I stress I haven't chased the details).
Latin america have the world largest Lithium reserves, specially accross Argentina, Bolivia and Chile being the three largest and Brazil being the 7th..
The largest lithium mining company in the region is Sigma Lithium..
Tesla was negotiating to buy the Sigma Lithium but now the Chinese BYD is the favorite.. [0] [1]
China companies are currently owning the EV market in Brazil , and many other developing contries, and they have plans for both cars and batteries factories in Brazil, but they need access to lithium for that and so they are going for the lithium mining companies as well..
Musk not only need the lithium but he also want to block the grow of Chinese companies that are owning the market in many developing countries where Tesla is not present and are even growing fast in Europe..
Musk expect that a right wing government will align with him, and be in favor of blocking China and that would open the door for him to buy the mining companies instead..
> Musk expect that a right wing government will align with him, and be in favor of blocking China and that would open the door for him to buy the mining companies instead..
Things in Brazil are not simple as that. Bolsonaro, the latest right wing president, did more business with china and russia than expected. He was one of the first chief of state to fly to Moscou when Russia invade Ukraine, to reinsure brazil would be neutral on this war. (same position of Lula).
Unfortunately Lula isn't quite neutral as he likes to parrot Putin's propaganda narratives, particularly as to the root "cause" of the war:
But it’s not just Putin who is guilty. The U.S. and the E.U. are also guilty. What was the reason for the Ukraine invasion? NATO? Then the U.S. and Europe should have said: “Ukraine won’t join NATO.” That would have solved the problem.
This doesn't make him stooge or ally of course. More likely it's the toxic side effect from decades of ingesting his movement's own kool-aid as far as geopolitics goes ("The enemy of my enemy can't be half bad", that sort of thing).
He did more business then expected but he did not miss an opportunity to speak ill of china.
There were even multiple letters from the Chinese embassy complaining about stuff he said..
China even blocked buying meat from Brazil for a while with the excuse of mad cow disease..
So regardless of how much business Bolsonaro did with China, he would be more inclined to help Elon in blocking China then the current left wing goverment is..
Who said anything about stopping doing business with china??
What i said is that Elon expect that a right wing government would block, difficult or delay this single Chinese company from buying Sigma Lithium to help him to buy it instead..
Australia is doing the same think right now.. Australia is currently the largest exporter of Lithium in the world and Chinese companies tried to buy some mining companies there but the Australian government prohibited.. They said the Lithium mining is too important to the country and that they do not want China to control it..
There is some investigation going that China might have went ahead and acquired the mining companies in Australia indirectly via third-party companies and last i have seen Australia government had ordered those companies to sell their share or else they will seize then..
China is still one of the largest Australia trade partners, that did not stopped it from blocking the mining company acquisition..
> What i said is that Elon expect that a right wing government would block, difficult or delay this single Chinese company from buying Sigma Lithium to help him to buy it instead..
My point is about this: Musk's expectations will most likely not be met, even with a right wing president. Brazil and China are strong trading partners (and friends nowadays, with Brics became a reality).
And what i am saying is that i do not agree with that take..
While a right wing government is not guarantied that Elon will be able to buy Sigma Lithium, i am 100% sure that a right wing government will work to try block or at least delay as much as possible the acquisition by BYD..
Specially in the unlikely case that Trump win the US election, remembering that Elon is supporting him.. US will not only support blocking China from increasing their foothold in the region, they would likely pressure Brazil for it..
It might even happen with Kamala but to a smaller degree..
I'm not across the current ownership breakdowns and state partnerships in South America (once upon a time I'd have quoted such things down to share percentages and layered subsidiary's) - the comment intrigued me as it's plausible there is some resource advantage to be gained by siding with one side of politics in Brazil, it's certainly the case that many large scale international dramas have at their core something that tracks back to resources and potential profits.
Controlling percentages can change, as can state restrictions on a number of conditions.
As I said it's not something I've dug into the details of.
Bolsonaro wanted to remove environmental protections and exploit mining resources in the Amazon, I feel this to be the only real reason why Elon has started to pushback hard against a Lula government who is driving Brazil back into protecting the Amazon (at least somewhat, still much more than openly supporting illegal mining as Bolsonaro's government did).
Both Tesla and BYD had negotiations to buy Sigma Lithium, the largest lithium mining company in Latam, where the world largest lithium reserves are..
Bolsonaro, and the right in general, is known to be anti-china and could help blocking BYD acquisition, that would favor Tesla that would be able to buy it cheaper then if he has to outbid BYD...
Cutting the Chinese access to latam lithium would also harm their expansion plans and slow their grow.. That would also favor Tesla as the Chinese is owning the market in many developing contries and are growing fast even in Europe..
Even in the US the Chinese EV are a problem to Tesla, to the point the government quadrupled the import taxes on Chinese EV..
What's happening is clear: Elon doesn't like Lula, the Brazilian president. Lula is left wing: his predecessor was a Trump-esque idiot. I'd guess many of Lula's actual policies harm the Musk's material interests in some way, or are just things he doesn't like. It might literally just be that Musk has heard Lula is left wing and therefore wants to make life as hard as possible.
Thats where we are now. You also couldn't refrain from calling a political oponent "Trump-esque idiot". Imagine what you would do to them if you had enough money to actually go out for a fight?
Judge Moraes has had his share of run-ins with Lula, and can hardly be described as a stooge for the Left. What he has been doing is go after Brazil's version of the Jan 6th insurrectionists, whom Musk is congenial to along with other far-right causes. As Germany showed, if you don't go after thugs when they are still in their inept beer-hall putsch phase, it is too late afterwards.
No, the judge's very first action after getting censorship super powers was to censor "fake news" about the official that gave him those powers, which later turned to be "true news".
You will find Musk's pretend "free-speech absolutism" is highly selective, and only applies to far-right voices. He's repeatedly censored his critics and journalists on his platform.
X and US law both have rules against incitement of imminent violence. It's one of the only exceptions to the First Amendment. X extends that to making violent threats in general. Those accounts were doing the latter and sometimes the former.
The @vps_reports account named in the first tweet in your story is a good example. The Intercept claims they were suspended for engaging in "journalism", "organizing" and "documenting extremism". X claims they were suspended for making violent threats.
If we follow links a bit further we see what sort of tweets @vps_reports was making:
> "One last thing. ChayaRaichik10 should live in fear for the rest of her days. It's only fair. Put the PHOBIA in her transphobia."
(there are several more examples like that)
It's not surprising that such people would fall afoul of an anti-threat rule if enforced fairly. Pre-Musk, people like that could make violent threats on Twitter, or even coordinate mob violence there, as long as they were threatening right wing people. Musk fixed that. The Intercept is being dishonest.
> Is this a principled defense of free speech or a case of a man treating ostensibly independent companies as divisions of his personal conglomerate?
Musk was happy to block Twitter content for Erdoğan before the 2023 Turkish election,[0][1] and block Ukraine from using it to hit the Russian navy.[2]
Do we need 10000 communication satellites compared to what a terrestrial network can provide? Cellular networks reutilize spectrum much more efficiently than space based systems. I get that there niche applications like rural broadband and military communications. I have no idea if Kessler syndrome is a real possibility but if it is then it doesn't seem worth it.
Yes we desperately do need it. Sure if you are living in your comfy American city you don't see the need. But most places on earth actually don't have a convenient cell tower or terrestrial network. Starlink is much more efficient to cover those areas then manually building out infrastructure there. It's not even a contest.
Yeah but you don't need 10000 satellites to provide cell coverage when 100 would do. Hybrid ground station networks have been a thing for a long time now... if your goal is to provide mobile networks for the lowest possible cost to the end user. That's not Starlink's goal -- these "uninternetnetted" folks don't have money to pay, they typically don't even have electricity. Rural broadband in developed countries do. Telematics does. So don't give me this bs of efficiency for the whole world.
Edit: to be more explicit about the architecture, you can run 100 satellites with better/ larger / more antennas that'll do the work of 1000. SpaceX has a different model, which is more low quality, disposable satellites because they have an inexpensive launch vehicle. Ultimately their system of 1000 might cost the same or less than the 100 high performance satellites. But I can't figure out why the heck they want 10000 satellites unless they want to just have phones communicate directly to orbit, no starlink base station as middlemen. So now they've clogged up LEO so they can replicate what terrestrial networks provide, AND there's a perfectly viable alternative architecture that didn't require nearly as many satellites. That's my gripe.
Someone doesn't know how orbits work, how big space is, or how expensive other satellite services used to be pre starlink. Or how bad it can get with latency.
And yes the unreachable people have family in reachable areas that can pay, sometimes the Internet is what keeps them away, since solar and batteries exist
You mean me, the aerospace engineer, who has published in this field, doesn't know how satellite constellations, link budgets, astrodynamics, the orbital environment, the systems engineering, and the other minutiae of this, doesn't understand the tradeoffs in building these things? What do you know, in a professional capacity? Tell me you're in this field, or piss off.
Tell me how big is space. Like, is it as big as the back of a giant tortoise upon which the flat earth moves? Is it bigger than a bread box, a telephone box, or a TARDIS? Wat is it???
There's another LEO provider with around the number of sats you recommend. What's the provider and how much do they charge for fixed use in the USA?
I worked at a cellular Telco serving customers with an ARPU under $20. Also worked at a satellite tech reseller.
These unreachable poor people were my bread and butter.
Your statements show ignorance about the markets, space and other minutae. Piss off.
How much would these better antennas end up costing? Is Rajeev Badyal an idiot?
Frankly unless you're thinking B2B then cell rather than B2C your choices are worse, not better. We have o3b and it's way better than starlink for stability. But there's several $$$$$$ big reasons I can't pop out to a shop and buy a receiver.
It's not about existing competitors, it's about the optimal constellation design that (a) serves the customers needs and (b) doesn't create a hazardous LEO environment after one accident or ASAT event happens. I don't think anyone's seriously tried to serve the market that Starlink does at LEO. Iridium and Globalstar targeted low bit rate low power terminals, they never tried for home internet. This market could be served by a constellation of similar size as these legacy providers if it was designed to do such. But nobody likes taking risks other than Elon I guess, so here we are.
I don't know about constellation size issues wrt to customer needs. But I presume one important factor was making sure the terminal costs were lower than a mid-range phone. Especially since Kuiper claims to be focused on that. It was an issue with Teledesic. Cheap sats also mean treating them like cattle rather than pets and that the on orbit spares are one orbit away from replacement
Lasers mean low bandwidth usage areas don't need ground stations.
Being in VLEO means most talk about Kessler is just regurgitated claims by people who don't haven't bothered to read his papers and don't know the time taken to clear orbits by debris. Some of them don't even realize that if you change the apogee via collision the perigee changes too.
I don't know if it's possible to serve with the same number at this altitude, but I can see even Kuiper is going for over 5k sats and OneWeb is selling antennas for 9k (down from 25k) and monthly service for fixed users in the US is 2500/m. I remember congestion issues with less sats (I wonder why they use nco=1 when Kuiper is 4)
As for the risk, people are already claiming the (dubious) success was already self evidently inevitable even when we can't see evidence of profits and that Elon's done nothing special.
Not even the struggles of Iris², Rivada, OneWeb, Kuiper, and pretty much every launch provider will convince them though.
I'm looking forward to what competitors bring and I'm willing to bet I won't be able to buy a terminal for less than $0.5k (unsubsidized) and service for less than $50/m in Africa from another provider before 2028 (Artemis). But I'm hopeful I'm wrong. I was paying ~$250/m for 4G. Now lower via devaluation but Starlink is $23/m here
I'm haven't gone deep into Kessler syndrome but the guy himself thought we were already at a tipping point more than a decade ago. In hindsight I think the model needed updating, but adding tens of thousands of new satellites seems like pushing our luck. Maybe SpaceX sees this as an advantage. When you've got the least expensive launch system, you can afford to launch armored satellites and launch vehicles.
Geez I forgot about Kuiper. Good god what are they doing.
If you're concerned about terminal cost, the whole point of ATC is that someone puts up a cell tower with a LEO satellite backbone, and people can use cheapo $20 mobile phones.
Anyway, developed countries' rural broadband and military contracts are where it's at. I'm sure Starlink -could- make a profit if it isn't doing so already.
One could argue that we've had internet way before we've had Starlink. It's not entirely compelling, considering many people in more remote areas don't have great access, but it would also be a bit disingenuous to equate starlink and internet.
Yeah, let's start a war with the USA by shooting down their satellites. What could go wrong?
Brazil does not have anti-satellite capabilities anyway. Brazil barely has guided missiles, it barely has rockets. Our space program is such a joke the brazilian military actually published a report detailing how the interference with Starlink is going to impact their operations. Starlink brought more internet and connectivity to the Amazon than the state ever did or ever will.
Twitter is far from a wasteland. Nothing that matters is exclusively on Bluesky, but a lot of it is on Twitter. The "old media" heavily relies on Twitter, too. Anger is a major driver of engagement on any medium, it's only natural that this shows through on Twitter.
Alternative platforms appear to be more civil because they're islands of echo-chambers. The anger is still there, it's just directed at the more abstract out-group, rather than any individuals that are part of the conversation.
> Alternative platforms appear to be more civil because they're islands of echo-chambers. The anger is still there, it's just directed at the more abstract out-group, rather than any individuals that are part of the conversation.
I'd say there are less bots and Putin-financed "fifth column" groups around on the Twitter alternatives, and that is the key thing. The porn spammers that make up half of the "likes" notifications on Twitter just don't see bsky or the fediverse as juicy targets and Instagram/Threads has far better tooling to yeet them, and the Putin propaganda army knows that the utter majority of people on bsky/fediverse are progressives where their points just don't appeal.
Social media would be way less toxic if the Western world had yeeted Russia off of the Internet after 2014.
To me, the real fifth column are the ones actively destroying all the values that are supposed to define "The Western world" in an attempt to save it, if only in name.
It's a mental shortcut to think that anyone who disagrees must've been influenced by some foreign power. Of course Russia picks up on dissent and attempts to amplify it, but it didn't create that dissent.
I loved it when it was T9 text (sms) to tweet. It was a novel way to share what you were doing say to day. The transformation from personal—to-promotional was their business plan.
When the feed becomes suggested, that’s when shit hit the fan for every social product. They still offer that as annoyware where you have to click over to it, but the nash equilibrium means that even the people you follow are trying to go viral instead of just sharing thoughts.
Reddit targeted the market for thoughtful discussion, and Twitter became the place for one-directional, bumper-sticker, talk radio style politics where nobody actually cares about the truth.
But for those few years between 2006-2010, Twitter was really a cool product.
Bluesky (ATProto) and Mastodon (ActivityPub) are designed differently, federated
I'm partial to ATProto, especially when it comes to user choice for algos, moderation, data hosting, and UI. There have been a few good HN posts lately, and in particular the comments therein
Pffft. X is by far the most important social network for people and things that matter. So not your vacation photos on Facebook or some influencer posting semi-nude pics on Instagram. It has only gotten better since Musk made moderation neutral, as opposed to the previous absurdly one-sided suppression of anything that deviates even slightly from ultra-left Liberal Silicon Valley ideology.
Just how important are the ground stations in Brazil? (I don't mean the end user terminals.)
If Starlink will basically continue to work well enough if those are seized, it seems like the obvious next steps are going to be crypto/stablecoin payments and a focus on small form factor terminals like Starlink Mini that can bypass customs.
And then Starlink users get fined or arrested and Starlink Minis get seized. Also how good does it look for an international company to sell as evading customs and imports taxes.
Crypto and stablecoin don't make the physical reality of owning such a device disappear.
Hilariously, the brazilian military published a report on the impact of Starlink's blocking to their operations. One would think this would get them to fund a proper space program.
This is a path that ends with Starlink being unable to respect the law in other jurisdictions, and getting progressively banned elsewhere, or Musk getting jailed on foreign trips like the Telegram CEO.
There is a reason why legit companies tend to avoid using the same tools and methods as drug cartels.
This storyline was a rare case of me supporting Elon, but once again, he goes too far, childishly, for his ego. He is just proving a lot of people i don't particularly like right, that billionaires are supranational powers. Which does support a very marxist view on capitalism (and productivism sadly), that it enable money to create power above political power.
Because he's a huge hypocrite and only uses the excuse of free speech to enable right wing radicals, while not granting it to anyone he disagrees with.
What state were they restored to? If they were accessible, why did they have to be restored?
If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
If these accounts were banned due to censorship they'd have stayed banned. There are plenty of accounts that were shut down on Twitter that are still disabled today.
And you know that how exactly? Do you work at Twitter? Are you responsible for banning/restoring accounts?
You're making broad statements and assumptions that don't align with reality. The accounts were banned. You don't know why they were banned or restored.
I actually did work on account suspensions and abuse handling at Google, and after I left I visited Twitter and gave them a talk about bot fighting techniques, so yeah. I don't know these accounts specifically but have worked in that field and know the signs.
It doesn't matter if you've worked on this at a different company, especially considering how much Musk changed about Twitter. You either know the reasons they were banned and restored or you don't - it's disingenuous to claim that a) they weren't banned, and b) to claim you know that the reasons definitely aren't XYZ.
What sender and tone? The issue is that an individual show power superior to that of a state. And a powerful and rich one at that.
I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far.
And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X?
No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him.
It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
I guess you would be on the barricades fighting for DDRs right to suppress free speech as well.
I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
The result will be that speech will be suppressed for 99% of the population and only a select few can talk. If it was a principled position the effects would be 10 times greater but since he compromised himself for money, the effects would be minimal.
I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it.
If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no?
[edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that.
I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech.
Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what they've done in many countries, DDR for example. Do you not agree?
It's suppressed for everyone who don't have Starlink or the mean/knowledge to pay for a VPN on their phone.
Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'.
Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal attack, I must have been wrong, it was a perfectly good faith argument, so I will respond:
I'm saying that Elon Musk see himself above Brazil court of justice, and act like a supranational power. If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw.
I will add that i apologize for the sarcasm but I will let it there, because that's what I would have responded in real life. If you _really_ didn't intend it as a personal attack, you should consider how you communicate with your peers. The first message wasn't any better and close enough to an ad hominem I considered not engaging, but I thought I wasn't clear enough and i needed clarification, so it was a good vehicle. Sorry again if it wasn't a personal attack.
Reading this comment compared to your first - I'm having even more trouble understanding what you are really on about.
The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".
Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct?
Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?
You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.
"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?
Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.
Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp.
But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet.
Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country"
Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.
It's frightening how authoritarian the Left has become around the world. Ambiguous laws about'hate' seem poised to protect the world from thought crimes by curtailing basic human rights.
In this context Musk is right and has the power to bring change. He will lose a lot of that power under a Harris presidency that has advertised it plans to continue the crusade against freedom of speech.
Wow, just wow. The gloves are off. I wouldn’t expect anything this naive on HN.
There is a difference between freedom of expression (freedom of opinion) and freedom of speech. The latter contains the former, but is much more than that because freedom of expression stops where hate and discrimination begins.
The human right of free speech protects hate, disinformation, and a host of other horrible words one might say. That's because hate and disinformation are ambiguous terms used be tyrants to arrest dissidents. So long as someone isn't making true threats, or inciting imminent lawlessness, humans have a right to their own thoughts and the expression of their ideas. Your definition of hate is bit universal and will only lead to tyranny.
Brazil should just sponsor their own fediverse nodes. But it's a lot easier to just block something in their national ISP. Complicated long term solutions are not interesting when they're trying to extort Elon for money.
> Complicated long term solutions are not interesting when they're trying to extort Elon for money.
There's no extortion, the fines are simply due to the company not following courts' decisions. The money itself is inconsequential, the fines are too low to be of any importance to the Brazilian government, they just want Elon to follow the law.
Or do you believe a company should have the power to be above the law in a jurisdiction they operate in?
Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ?
Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
And if a Court find that X doesn't respect the country law, why should X be seen as a "free speech" leader and not just as an illegal company ?
For me, Musk attitude is just plain bullying as usual, and I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
Is X a bralizian institution ? I don't think so... so X has no right to oppose this decision !
If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People. But X is not a brazilian citizen AFAIK... so it either follow the rules, leave the country or is illegal.
Moreover, when Starlink refuse to respect a court order, Starlink is although a problem (be it another Musk property or not)
People can do whatever they want. They just need to accept the consequences.
I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them. I chose to accept that risk because I find this situation to appalling to keep quiet about it. This wasn't a choice I made lightly. My own parents who lived through last century's military dictatorship recognized the signs and asked me to stop commenting online. They feared this guy might order my arrest and generally ruin my life. Their fears are not unfounded.
So I respect Elon Musk for this utterly political move. He accepted the consequences and did something few others would do. I can respect that. I have no doubt he has hidden self-serving reasons behind this move but that's an analysis for another day. Right now I'm just interested in the political ramifications this will have for my nation.
> I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them
My brother in Christ. There is ZERO chance of this to happen for this kind of comment and to me It only tells me you need to distance yourself a bit from this. Focus on something positive for a week. You're going down a path that is so far outside the realm of possibilities at this time that's worrisome.
I wouldn't say there's a zero chance. The judge has gone after YouTubers and journalists before. I know that at least some of them fled to the USA to escape his persecution. There's one journalist in particular that the judge hates so much he was mentioned in those WhatsApp message leaks. Judge and his people apparently think the USA is being "difficult" for not giving the guy up.
Unfortunately HN doesn't allow for deleting an account or old comments and it would be mostly pointless anyway because 3rd parties will archive them. While the probability of information posted here reaching Moraes is virtually zero it is very possibly in the future this information will be analyzed by large teams or automated systems and could lead to issues with authority. The future is unpredictable and this is not without precedent in countries like China and Russia. Even in Brazil I believe there are cases where people where arrested or at least fined for liking or sharing a post.
> I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.
If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.
As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].
> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.
I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.
I've never actually understood the difference, curious if you can help fill in a few blanks for me.
How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?
It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.
You are free to express your opinions ("I don't like immigrants from Africa"), but you are not free to choose any manner of speech, as there's restrictions in certain areas, such as hate speech or inciting violence ("Kill the N-words!")
It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.
Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?
Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.
It certainly is a lot more ambiguous than absolute free speech, yes. I think your example would still count as hate speech inciting violence against black people. The Nazi one I'm not sure off the top of my head, to be honest.
Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law
In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly
However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).
"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)
This has always been a huge hangup for me with laws in general. If a law isn't clearly spelled out enough to be able to know when I would be in the wrong before I act (or speak), I'm effectively at the whims of the legal system and I can't avoid it.
The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.
The US banns a lot of stuff too, from porn to sharing songs.
A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today.
I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.
You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?
America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits
So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.
I do personally disagree with this definition. Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want. The expansion of what falls under free speech is dangerous and, as made clear today, leads to arguments that erode what was originally meant to be a fundamental right.
Child pornography is not speech. Copyrights also aren't related to free speech as far as I'm aware, that's intellectual property law.
I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.
Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.
This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.
X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".
We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".
This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.
The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.
> In Israel, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: Palestine existence)
This is both completely untrue, and has nothing to do with this post.
Approved by the Knesset on May 24, 2009 by a vote of 37-25, with 60 abstaining:
"Fundamentals of Finance – Amendment No. 40", sometimes referred to as the Nakba Law, is a 2011 Israeli law which received criticism for limiting freedom of speech pertaining to the founding of Israel and the Nakba. The law affects organizations which are funded, in whole or in part, by the government.[1]
The law authorizes the Minister of Finance to withhold a limited amount of state funds from any government-funded[1] institution or body that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning", or that denies the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."
The judge has a history of actual censorship, here's a case that the NYT wrote about, where he got a Brazilian magazine's news article deleted for "fake news" for writing a true article about the official who promoted him, as soon as he got powers to censor without due process or checks and balances.
> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017.
> In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”
> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.
That article is from 2022 but has a lot of details of overreach by the judge, like search raids on the homes of businessman who just happened to be in a group chat where someone was joking about a coup.
Huh. Maybe you should take your own advice and mind France's business and leave Brazil's and Musk's alone. God knows your country needs it.
Tangential, but I stopped being upset about asinine takes on free speech and government when I realized that the overwhelming majority of them came from provincial and subjugated Brits, Europeans, and Australians. You can see the bed they've made in their own countries, which I think is punishment enough.
There are a bunch of countries calling them selves democratic in name but are anything but that in reality. If in France in the future people democratically decide racism apology is fine, you would have no problem with that?
Barelly related, I was not Twitter user, but since X I come up with full length XXX movies in suggestions. Did it started with X or they were a thing before Elon?
I just wish this guy would take the loss and sell twitter and go back to being an uncontroversial tech legend. Mixing with Social media has corrupted every positive thing he has done and maybe will do if he keeps it up at the current pace. People tire of the drama king. If you don't know what I mean.. he said his transgender child is dead to him in a publicly aired interview. That's where this guy is in his personal relationships.
>>I just wish this guy would take the loss and sell twitter and go back to being an uncontroversial tech legend.
Why do you care, he is spending his own money. Isn't it more important that we now know Brazil has no rule of law. A single party overtook all the subsystems in the country and now Brazil is in the company of countries like Iran or North Korea regarding X censorship. Eye opening is also how many people would condemn an entire nation to censorship only to see one guy they don't like hurt.
You are overstating enforcement of corporate laws vs. a government censoring an entire nation. Similarly banning X in the US would not be censorship if the company flouted and refused to obey US laws.
He is spending many people's money, not just his own. He's human, he can be both a tech legend and a polarizing, drama-magnet of a human being, I just lament him leaning into the latter when the benefit is winning a pissing match.
No no no no no no.
It's not as black and white as "oh they failed to obey US laws" - that is a highly deceptive portrayal of the situation! We are talking about free speech laws.
What if the law says "no hate speech, according to a floating definition of hate speech drafted by those with power who are the scions of rightthink"
What if the law says "no disinformation, according to the custodians of rightthink and rightinformation.
Very 1984! And it's 2024, how a propos, 40 years off.
"No disinformation" itself is highly dubious! Wow, there's an information expert who instantly can detect correct versus incorrect "facts"? Can they review all science ever and suss out what's right, using their infallible power? Because that's the politically constructed facade we're dealing with here.
No, Eli Musk had it figured out. Speech is free and free is speech. If someone has misinformation, let the people beat them down for it. If someone is wrong, let someone call them out.
The power to make speech is to the people, the power to call out and regulate speech is also to the people. For the state to usurp such a power, is 1984-esque big brother manipulations, for the purpose no more nor less of political control and manipulation
Your argument is no content moderation by social platforms. Your point is if it's hard, don't do it. Courts and legal interpretations exist for this reason, to parse the grey areas, and in this case they are ruling against Twitter's lack of content moderation.
Free speech doesn't equate to the freedom to spread misinformation, supporting and then organizing an attempted a military coup in Brazil.
Do you perhaps have a link to the definition of misinformation. What exactly counts as misinformation? Telling someone a fact you maybe misremembered from a while ago, would that be misinformation and as such punishable?
Drama is the only way for him to continue covering up the massive Ponzi that his businesses have evolved into.
Tesla won't last much longer. Their numbers are objectively terrible, and they're puffed up, the truth is even uglier. Boring is losing money fast, X is losing money fast, xAI is losing money fast, NeuraLink is losing a bit slower, but losing. SpaceX is propped up by US govt and Starlink is the only real asset here, and governments around the world won't permit a private company led by a lunatic to have a monopoly on the world's communications, so Elon is really in a VERY BAD NOT GOOD AT ALL situation.
I will say on the positive side ... Starlink/SpaceX is a huge asset. And the Tesla Energy Megapack has a huge forward market opportunity (utility grids are just getting started with battery energy storage for smoothing out renewables). And the Tesla charging products are the gold standard.
Li-ion batteries will quickly show themselves a terrible way to smooth out renewables. I mean purely economically. Initial cost, unreliable range in hot or cold weather, and over time.
Although considering they needed helicopters dropping 50 tons of water over ONE BURNING TESLA SEMI for like a full day, imagine when a megapack catches on fire. Oh my God, it will scorch the skies of the entire f*kin' planet. I'm kidding (I hope), but you get my point.
Yes SpaceX is the key asset 100%. But he can be kicked out of SpaceX if he keeps upsetting Some Important People, and he's a deeply unserious man-child, and he doesn't know when to stop.
206 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 260 ms ] threadThere are other examples, those two should suffice.
Would you rather: He obeys all governments? Obeys no governments?
I have no particular insight into Musk, I speak only to the observation that he appears to support some voices over others and as such that is "his voice" - those who say things he supports and whose opponents he blocks.
"This is at least the fifth time that X, under Musk, has purged accounts that are the slightest bit critical of him, his friends, or causes he supports"
MintPress News journalist: https://twitter.com/alanrmacleod (active, posted in the last hour)
Intercept journalist: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein (active, posted 46 minutes ago)
Texas Observer journalist: https://x.com/stevanzetti (active, posted 2 hours ago)
If these are the best examples of Musk engaging in censorship then he must be doing a very fair job indeed!
A more likely explanation is that the suspensions were related to anti-botting activity, as they came back from suspension with fewer followers than before. Journalists buying Twitter followers is not unheard of, unfortunately:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/journalists-struggle-ex...
https://electrek.co/2022/12/20/tesla-wont-tolerate-dissent-a...
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-staff-slam-elon-musk...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/former-ceo-tesla-criticized-m...
Oh wait, you mean suppress people ON TWITTER? This is an entirely different search query.
Are the judge's (possibly illegal) moves motivated by interpretation of the law or by personal vendetta?
Hard to tell , but i'm glad for less censorship.
He's running the social media service like a kingdom where lèse-majesté is the gravest offense, promoting himself and blocking any topics that he doesn't personally like (including the existence of his own daughter who posts on Threads now).
Old Twitter had flawed content moderation processes, but at least there was a process.
https://archive.is/plQFT
Police showing up at 6am to search your house because you happened to be in whatsapp group where someone else joked about a coup is definitely violence.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day yourself!
TIL:
> Lèse-majesté or lese-majesty (UK: /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɪsti/ leez MAJ-ist-ee, US: /ˌleɪz -/ layz - )[1][2][3] is an offence or defamation against the dignity of a ruling head of state (traditionally a monarch but now more often a president) or of the state itself. The English name for this crime is a modernised borrowing from the medieval French, where the phrase meant 'a crime against the Crown'. In classical Latin, laesa māiestās meant 'hurt/violated majesty' or 'injured sovereignty' (originally with reference to the majesty of the sovereign people, in post-classical Latin also of the monarch).[2][3]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté
"However, Brazilian law, specifically the Civil Code and the Consumer Defense Code, includes a mechanism known as "desconsideração da personalidade jurídica" (piercing the corporate veil). This legal principle allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a company in cases where there is evidence of fraud, misuse of the corporate form, or abuse of rights.
If an owner uses multiple companies in a way that is fraudulent or meant to evade the law, the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the owner and their other companies liable. This means that if there is a proven link between the misconduct in Company A and other companies owned by the same person, those other companies could potentially be affected."
Edit: My comment may have sounded stupid because obviously Musk ownership is a link between both companies though this isn't by itself a valid reason to pierce the corporate veil in Brazilian law. The fundamental criteria is patrimonial confusion and so far I've not seem evidence that X operation was intertwined with Starlink. The only thing is the self-fulfilling hypothesis that people will use Starlink to circumvent the blocking of X.
There's no visible rhyme or reason why he's fighting the Brazilian courts much harder than orders from other less democratic countries, something else is happening unrelated to free speech or any lip service he pays to.
That's your rhyme and reason if you ask me, he just loooooves (wannabe) dictators
But OTOH it is pointless to 'fight' the judicial system of e.g. Russia, or flawed democracies like Turkey which stage a coup. OTOH brazil is somewhat more democratic and it makes sense to appeal to their democratic institutions.
<Mandatory "i don't like elon" to avoid flagging />
Even when giving Elon some leeway to have reasonable doubt I still believe the argument falls flat when he attempts to coat it with his "free speech defender" persona against Brazil but not against dictatorships.
If he's willing to challenge Brazilian courts to the point where Twitter becomes unavailable to the public why wouldn't he do the same in places with much less freedom of speech?
It simply doesn't make sense using his public rationale, if he was a free speech absolutist he wouldn't allow Twitter to exist in places where free speech is impossible and is gagged by dictators' court orders. He's fighting Brazilian courts way too hard given his stance on Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Is he a puppet? Has he ulterior motives in Brazil? We can't really know from public information but that there's something fishy and wrong going under wraps, it is.
Somebody made a case in an earlier thread (that I haven't had time to pursue) that Brazil has the largest lithium mining company (not fields or mines) with standing contracts in South America .. and they claimed that Musk wants to seed unrest | see Bolsonaro (or his party) back in to get a better deal on raw materials for his battery factories in Texas.
That has a plausible ring to it (but, again, I stress I haven't chased the details).
The largest lithium mining company in the region is Sigma Lithium..
Tesla was negotiating to buy the Sigma Lithium but now the Chinese BYD is the favorite.. [0] [1]
China companies are currently owning the EV market in Brazil , and many other developing contries, and they have plans for both cars and batteries factories in Brazil, but they need access to lithium for that and so they are going for the lithium mining companies as well..
Musk not only need the lithium but he also want to block the grow of Chinese companies that are owning the market in many developing countries where Tesla is not present and are even growing fast in Europe..
Musk expect that a right wing government will align with him, and be in favor of blocking China and that would open the door for him to buy the mining companies instead..
[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-considering-bid-sig...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/3c55d69b-6932-4255-ad79-daeced372...
Things in Brazil are not simple as that. Bolsonaro, the latest right wing president, did more business with china and russia than expected. He was one of the first chief of state to fly to Moscou when Russia invade Ukraine, to reinsure brazil would be neutral on this war. (same position of Lula).
This doesn't make him stooge or ally of course. More likely it's the toxic side effect from decades of ingesting his movement's own kool-aid as far as geopolitics goes ("The enemy of my enemy can't be half bad", that sort of thing).
But Lula will not move to prevent BYD from buying Sigma Lithium or to help Elon buy it instead.
While a right wing government is not guarantied they will help Elon there is a much higher chance of it..
There were even multiple letters from the Chinese embassy complaining about stuff he said..
China even blocked buying meat from Brazil for a while with the excuse of mad cow disease..
So regardless of how much business Bolsonaro did with China, he would be more inclined to help Elon in blocking China then the current left wing goverment is..
Both know that Brazil is not in a position to refuse to do business with China and the US.
What i said is that Elon expect that a right wing government would block, difficult or delay this single Chinese company from buying Sigma Lithium to help him to buy it instead..
Australia is doing the same think right now.. Australia is currently the largest exporter of Lithium in the world and Chinese companies tried to buy some mining companies there but the Australian government prohibited.. They said the Lithium mining is too important to the country and that they do not want China to control it..
There is some investigation going that China might have went ahead and acquired the mining companies in Australia indirectly via third-party companies and last i have seen Australia government had ordered those companies to sell their share or else they will seize then..
China is still one of the largest Australia trade partners, that did not stopped it from blocking the mining company acquisition..
My point is about this: Musk's expectations will most likely not be met, even with a right wing president. Brazil and China are strong trading partners (and friends nowadays, with Brics became a reality).
While a right wing government is not guarantied that Elon will be able to buy Sigma Lithium, i am 100% sure that a right wing government will work to try block or at least delay as much as possible the acquisition by BYD..
Specially in the unlikely case that Trump win the US election, remembering that Elon is supporting him.. US will not only support blocking China from increasing their foothold in the region, they would likely pressure Brazil for it..
It might even happen with Kamala but to a smaller degree..
Controlling percentages can change, as can state restrictions on a number of conditions.
As I said it's not something I've dug into the details of.
Both Tesla and BYD had negotiations to buy Sigma Lithium, the largest lithium mining company in Latam, where the world largest lithium reserves are..
Bolsonaro, and the right in general, is known to be anti-china and could help blocking BYD acquisition, that would favor Tesla that would be able to buy it cheaper then if he has to outbid BYD...
Cutting the Chinese access to latam lithium would also harm their expansion plans and slow their grow.. That would also favor Tesla as the Chinese is owning the market in many developing contries and are growing fast even in Europe..
Even in the US the Chinese EV are a problem to Tesla, to the point the government quadrupled the import taxes on Chinese EV..
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41425086
I've read speculation that he's after our lithium mines. Not sure how true that is yet but I don't doubt it.
They blocked the funds of Starlink because of X related business. So why are you saying this?
The @vps_reports account named in the first tweet in your story is a good example. The Intercept claims they were suspended for engaging in "journalism", "organizing" and "documenting extremism". X claims they were suspended for making violent threats.
If we follow links a bit further we see what sort of tweets @vps_reports was making:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1596074770193604609/pho...
> "One last thing. ChayaRaichik10 should live in fear for the rest of her days. It's only fair. Put the PHOBIA in her transphobia."
(there are several more examples like that)
It's not surprising that such people would fall afoul of an anti-threat rule if enforced fairly. Pre-Musk, people like that could make violent threats on Twitter, or even coordinate mob violence there, as long as they were threatening right wing people. Musk fixed that. The Intercept is being dishonest.
Musk was happy to block Twitter content for Erdoğan before the 2023 Turkish election,[0][1] and block Ukraine from using it to hit the Russian navy.[2]
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-ena...
[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitter-musk-censors...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/musk-stopped-ukraine-atta...
It’s up there with microplastics and e-ink displays as a HN meme.
Edit: to be more explicit about the architecture, you can run 100 satellites with better/ larger / more antennas that'll do the work of 1000. SpaceX has a different model, which is more low quality, disposable satellites because they have an inexpensive launch vehicle. Ultimately their system of 1000 might cost the same or less than the 100 high performance satellites. But I can't figure out why the heck they want 10000 satellites unless they want to just have phones communicate directly to orbit, no starlink base station as middlemen. So now they've clogged up LEO so they can replicate what terrestrial networks provide, AND there's a perfectly viable alternative architecture that didn't require nearly as many satellites. That's my gripe.
And yes the unreachable people have family in reachable areas that can pay, sometimes the Internet is what keeps them away, since solar and batteries exist
See the Marubo for example
Tell me how big is space. Like, is it as big as the back of a giant tortoise upon which the flat earth moves? Is it bigger than a bread box, a telephone box, or a TARDIS? Wat is it???
There's another LEO provider with around the number of sats you recommend. What's the provider and how much do they charge for fixed use in the USA?
I worked at a cellular Telco serving customers with an ARPU under $20. Also worked at a satellite tech reseller.
These unreachable poor people were my bread and butter.
Your statements show ignorance about the markets, space and other minutae. Piss off.
How much would these better antennas end up costing? Is Rajeev Badyal an idiot?
Frankly unless you're thinking B2B then cell rather than B2C your choices are worse, not better. We have o3b and it's way better than starlink for stability. But there's several $$$$$$ big reasons I can't pop out to a shop and buy a receiver.
Lasers mean low bandwidth usage areas don't need ground stations.
Being in VLEO means most talk about Kessler is just regurgitated claims by people who don't haven't bothered to read his papers and don't know the time taken to clear orbits by debris. Some of them don't even realize that if you change the apogee via collision the perigee changes too.
I don't know if it's possible to serve with the same number at this altitude, but I can see even Kuiper is going for over 5k sats and OneWeb is selling antennas for 9k (down from 25k) and monthly service for fixed users in the US is 2500/m. I remember congestion issues with less sats (I wonder why they use nco=1 when Kuiper is 4)
As for the risk, people are already claiming the (dubious) success was already self evidently inevitable even when we can't see evidence of profits and that Elon's done nothing special.
Not even the struggles of Iris², Rivada, OneWeb, Kuiper, and pretty much every launch provider will convince them though.
I'm looking forward to what competitors bring and I'm willing to bet I won't be able to buy a terminal for less than $0.5k (unsubsidized) and service for less than $50/m in Africa from another provider before 2028 (Artemis). But I'm hopeful I'm wrong. I was paying ~$250/m for 4G. Now lower via devaluation but Starlink is $23/m here
Geez I forgot about Kuiper. Good god what are they doing.
If you're concerned about terminal cost, the whole point of ATC is that someone puts up a cell tower with a LEO satellite backbone, and people can use cheapo $20 mobile phones.
Anyway, developed countries' rural broadband and military contracts are where it's at. I'm sure Starlink -could- make a profit if it isn't doing so already.
The judge can certainly issue an Interpol Red Notice for Musk, which would cramp his jet-setting lifestyle.
Brazil does not have anti-satellite capabilities anyway. Brazil barely has guided missiles, it barely has rockets. Our space program is such a joke the brazilian military actually published a report detailing how the interference with Starlink is going to impact their operations. Starlink brought more internet and connectivity to the Amazon than the state ever did or ever will.
Alternative platforms appear to be more civil because they're islands of echo-chambers. The anger is still there, it's just directed at the more abstract out-group, rather than any individuals that are part of the conversation.
I'd say there are less bots and Putin-financed "fifth column" groups around on the Twitter alternatives, and that is the key thing. The porn spammers that make up half of the "likes" notifications on Twitter just don't see bsky or the fediverse as juicy targets and Instagram/Threads has far better tooling to yeet them, and the Putin propaganda army knows that the utter majority of people on bsky/fediverse are progressives where their points just don't appeal.
Social media would be way less toxic if the Western world had yeeted Russia off of the Internet after 2014.
It's a mental shortcut to think that anyone who disagrees must've been influenced by some foreign power. Of course Russia picks up on dissent and attempts to amplify it, but it didn't create that dissent.
I loved it when it was T9 text (sms) to tweet. It was a novel way to share what you were doing say to day. The transformation from personal—to-promotional was their business plan.
When the feed becomes suggested, that’s when shit hit the fan for every social product. They still offer that as annoyware where you have to click over to it, but the nash equilibrium means that even the people you follow are trying to go viral instead of just sharing thoughts.
Reddit targeted the market for thoughtful discussion, and Twitter became the place for one-directional, bumper-sticker, talk radio style politics where nobody actually cares about the truth.
But for those few years between 2006-2010, Twitter was really a cool product.
I'm partial to ATProto, especially when it comes to user choice for algos, moderation, data hosting, and UI. There have been a few good HN posts lately, and in particular the comments therein
If Starlink will basically continue to work well enough if those are seized, it seems like the obvious next steps are going to be crypto/stablecoin payments and a focus on small form factor terminals like Starlink Mini that can bypass customs.
Crypto and stablecoin don't make the physical reality of owning such a device disappear.
I'm not sure how feasible first finding and then fining/arresting owners would be. The proposed VPN fines were seen as outrageously disproportionate.
Is used by the military, hospitals and schools on remote places on the amazon rainforest.
There is a reason why legit companies tend to avoid using the same tools and methods as drug cartels.
His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
> All the accounts were restored in a few hours
If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
You're making broad statements and assumptions that don't align with reality. The accounts were banned. You don't know why they were banned or restored.
I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far.
And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X?
No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him.
It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it.
If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no?
[edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that.
I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech.
Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what they've done in many countries, DDR for example. Do you not agree?
Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'.
Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal attack, I must have been wrong, it was a perfectly good faith argument, so I will respond:
I'm saying that Elon Musk see himself above Brazil court of justice, and act like a supranational power. If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw.
I will add that i apologize for the sarcasm but I will let it there, because that's what I would have responded in real life. If you _really_ didn't intend it as a personal attack, you should consider how you communicate with your peers. The first message wasn't any better and close enough to an ad hominem I considered not engaging, but I thought I wasn't clear enough and i needed clarification, so it was a good vehicle. Sorry again if it wasn't a personal attack.
The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".
Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct? Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?
You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.
"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?
Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.
Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp.
But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet.
Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country"
Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.
In this context Musk is right and has the power to bring change. He will lose a lot of that power under a Harris presidency that has advertised it plans to continue the crusade against freedom of speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/08/brazil-...
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml
You'd want the white house to do the same if China would want to do something similar with, let's say, TikTok ;)
I'm hoping for a different outcome and the world turns in a better direction than forcing "Democrats" to vote for an un-nominated candidate.
There is a difference between freedom of expression (freedom of opinion) and freedom of speech. The latter contains the former, but is much more than that because freedom of expression stops where hate and discrimination begins.
There's no extortion, the fines are simply due to the company not following courts' decisions. The money itself is inconsequential, the fines are too low to be of any importance to the Brazilian government, they just want Elon to follow the law.
Or do you believe a company should have the power to be above the law in a jurisdiction they operate in?
Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
And if a Court find that X doesn't respect the country law, why should X be seen as a "free speech" leader and not just as an illegal company ?
For me, Musk attitude is just plain bullying as usual, and I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People. But X is not a brazilian citizen AFAIK... so it either follow the rules, leave the country or is illegal.
Moreover, when Starlink refuse to respect a court order, Starlink is although a problem (be it another Musk property or not)
They have the right because you can appeal to the court. The problem is: it’s the Supreme Court, your appeal would be judged by the same judge.
> If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People.
True, but since the Supreme Court is also the only court where politicians can be judged, no one will do anything to stop them.
I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them. I chose to accept that risk because I find this situation to appalling to keep quiet about it. This wasn't a choice I made lightly. My own parents who lived through last century's military dictatorship recognized the signs and asked me to stop commenting online. They feared this guy might order my arrest and generally ruin my life. Their fears are not unfounded.
So I respect Elon Musk for this utterly political move. He accepted the consequences and did something few others would do. I can respect that. I have no doubt he has hidden self-serving reasons behind this move but that's an analysis for another day. Right now I'm just interested in the political ramifications this will have for my nation.
My brother in Christ. There is ZERO chance of this to happen for this kind of comment and to me It only tells me you need to distance yourself a bit from this. Focus on something positive for a week. You're going down a path that is so far outside the realm of possibilities at this time that's worrisome.
The US banned Tiktok for way less than this.
No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.
If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.
As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/08/30/musk-esca...
That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.
I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.
How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?
It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.
It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.
Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?
Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.
In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly
However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).
"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)
The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.
A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.
I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.
America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits
I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.
[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...
Who intended that?
So you have no problem with defamation? Or threats?
I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.
Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.
This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.
X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".
We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".
This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.
The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.
This is both completely untrue, and has nothing to do with this post.
"Fundamentals of Finance – Amendment No. 40", sometimes referred to as the Nakba Law, is a 2011 Israeli law which received criticism for limiting freedom of speech pertaining to the founding of Israel and the Nakba. The law affects organizations which are funded, in whole or in part, by the government.[1]
The law authorizes the Minister of Finance to withhold a limited amount of state funds from any government-funded[1] institution or body that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning", or that denies the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law
Your hint that Brazil have the USG give Elon Musk the Pavel Durov treatment is chilling, indeed.
I guess after HN is shut down, a Martin Niemöller moment might find you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Personally, I don’t think countries should get international control over satellites that they didn’t launch or operate.
> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017. > In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”
> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.
https://archive.is/plQFT
That article is from 2022 but has a lot of details of overreach by the judge, like search raids on the homes of businessman who just happened to be in a group chat where someone was joking about a coup.
Tangential, but I stopped being upset about asinine takes on free speech and government when I realized that the overwhelming majority of them came from provincial and subjugated Brits, Europeans, and Australians. You can see the bed they've made in their own countries, which I think is punishment enough.
I am not in favor of any government fining people thousands of US dollars a day for the thoughtcrime of using a VPN to access X from within Brazil.
(I'm pretty sure that mods are hiding the VPN-ban news from /r/news and /r/worldnews, because it would damage the ongoing anti-Musk two-minute hates.)
Before that videos could only be max 140 seconds long. Now the limit is 2 hours.
@Elon: Start putting your actual servers up in order next.
Why do you care, he is spending his own money. Isn't it more important that we now know Brazil has no rule of law. A single party overtook all the subsystems in the country and now Brazil is in the company of countries like Iran or North Korea regarding X censorship. Eye opening is also how many people would condemn an entire nation to censorship only to see one guy they don't like hurt.
He is spending many people's money, not just his own. He's human, he can be both a tech legend and a polarizing, drama-magnet of a human being, I just lament him leaning into the latter when the benefit is winning a pissing match.
No, Eli Musk had it figured out. Speech is free and free is speech. If someone has misinformation, let the people beat them down for it. If someone is wrong, let someone call them out.
The power to make speech is to the people, the power to call out and regulate speech is also to the people. For the state to usurp such a power, is 1984-esque big brother manipulations, for the purpose no more nor less of political control and manipulation
Free speech doesn't equate to the freedom to spread misinformation, supporting and then organizing an attempted a military coup in Brazil.
Whose money not freely given to him is he spending?
Tesla won't last much longer. Their numbers are objectively terrible, and they're puffed up, the truth is even uglier. Boring is losing money fast, X is losing money fast, xAI is losing money fast, NeuraLink is losing a bit slower, but losing. SpaceX is propped up by US govt and Starlink is the only real asset here, and governments around the world won't permit a private company led by a lunatic to have a monopoly on the world's communications, so Elon is really in a VERY BAD NOT GOOD AT ALL situation.
Although considering they needed helicopters dropping 50 tons of water over ONE BURNING TESLA SEMI for like a full day, imagine when a megapack catches on fire. Oh my God, it will scorch the skies of the entire f*kin' planet. I'm kidding (I hope), but you get my point.
Yes SpaceX is the key asset 100%. But he can be kicked out of SpaceX if he keeps upsetting Some Important People, and he's a deeply unserious man-child, and he doesn't know when to stop.