SAO PAULO (AP) — Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice’s order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.

Starlink said in a statement posted on X that it will heed Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ order despite him having frozen the company’s assets. Previously, it informally told the telecommunications regulator that it would not comply until de Moraes reversed course.

“Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil,” the company statement said. “We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre’s recent order violate the Brazilian constitution.”

  • trevor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4415 days ago

    Typically, I would agree. However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn’t censorship; it’s Twitter refusing to appoint legal council to respond to any legal complaints within Brazil’s jurisdiction. Musk has made the conscious decision to have Twitter not be legally-compliant with Brazil’s laws, therefore Brazil doesn’t allow them to operate there.

    • Trailblazing Braille Taser
      link
      fedilink
      -715 days ago

      However, what is happening with Twitter and Brazil isn’t censorship

      The Brazilian government is forcing an ISP to block customers’ access to a specific website. Whether it’s right or wrong is up for discussion, but I can’t accept the claim that this is not censorship.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1815 days ago

        You can’t operate a business that doesn’t comply with the law. They don’t get a free pass just because their business is a communication service.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        515 days ago

        If Chevron were to start drilling in Brazil without any sort of permits or company representative, you might say that Brazil is within its rights to seize that mining equipment. Would that also be censorship?