Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts

40 points by shark1 10 months ago | 49 comments
  • pfannkuchen 10 months ago
    Isn’t Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don’t feel surprised or outraged by this, more like— what did you expect?
    • protastus 10 months ago
      Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?
      • belval 10 months ago
        Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?
        • protastus 10 months ago
          Elon Musk is not in Brazil so action against him would be a waste of time.

          Action was against X, and then Musk shut down X's Brazilian office and left outstanding debts. The supreme court evaluates that X and Starlink have same ownership and therefore Starlink (which still has local representation) is being held responsible for X's delinquent debts.

          I am not a lawyer so can't comment on legality of this but it's obvious that X's stance on free speech is incompatible with Brazil's legislation on hate speech. My opinion is that X never had any intention to observe Brazilian law, and ran out of options to delay and deflect.

      • gamblor956 10 months ago
        Legally this is known as "piercing the veil" and if generally reserved for situations like this where someone is attempting to use a corporation to evade responsibility for law breaking.
      • 10 months ago
        • ImJamal 10 months ago
          Am I understanding this correctly? The judge didn't like what X did (or didn't do) so he is making moves against StarLink, which would allow users to potentially bypass the censorship this judge is pushing for.
          • xinayder 10 months ago
            It's not a question whether the judge disliked what X did or not. They were subpoenaed to block the accounts engaged in anti-democratic speech. Failing to do so, X would have to pay a 2k USD daily fine until they cooperated.

            X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt they owe to the state.

            Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian state.

            • mlindner 10 months ago
              They were subpoenaed because of the judge's personal dislike for those accounts. It had nothing to do with the law.
            • barryrandall 10 months ago
              As I understand it, X was fined, didn't pay, and the judge pierced a few corporate veils to discover that Starlink and X share a majority owner.
              • JumpCrisscross 10 months ago
                > Starlink and X share a majority owner

                Musk doesn’t own a majority of Starlink or SpaceX. (SpaceX owns Starlink. SpaceX is controlled by Musk. But he owns less than 50% of the shares.)

                • notfish 10 months ago
                  Musk owns 79% of voting shares of spacex (but yes, only 42% of equity). I guess it depends on your definition of “owns”, but its not unreasonable to say he owns spacex.
                • prepend 10 months ago
                  He had to pierce veils to figure that out? Couldn’t he just check Wikipedia like everyone else?

                  Is this legal in the US?

                  If company A owns B and C; and C does something bad, can A or B be fined?

              • 10 months ago
              • ChrisArchitect 10 months ago
                [dupe]

                Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962

                • mlindner 10 months ago
                  That post is flagged though.
                • stuaxo 10 months ago
                  What are the lumps on his face in that picture?
                  • throwway232423 10 months ago
                    [dead]
                    • blackhawkC17 10 months ago
                      [flagged]
                      • mikedelfino 10 months ago
                        > the rule of law is an afterthought

                        Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?

                        • dalmo3 10 months ago
                          Rule of law doesn't mean written law. A written law can be against the rule of law. Conversely, something might not be against the law but violate the rule of law.

                          > "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."

                          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

                          • mikedelfino 10 months ago
                            Doesn't that quote support the judge's position, though? X is being treated just like all other citizens. The page you linked also states "no one is above the law," so I'm sincerely not sure who we're talking about here.
                          • anon291 10 months ago
                            Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
                            • xinayder 10 months ago
                              Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense.

                              So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually following the law in the country is a human rights violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating group of countries in the world.

                              • mikedelfino 10 months ago
                                Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be published again.
                            • sabbaticaldev 10 months ago
                              what rule of law? Elon musk closed Brazil’s xitter office to not respond to it. This is real corruption
                            • anon291 10 months ago
                              [flagged]
                              • mistrial9 10 months ago
                                Starlink is widely used in deforestation and mining in Brazil. Elon Musk personally flew to Brazil to promote it (with Balsenero?), despite the predictions that Starlink would be used that way. The political pitch was that schools in the far reaches would use it - that has measurably failed to materialize. Meanwhile, Federal raids on gold mining operations show Starlink transceivers routinely.

                                source: Brazilian activist report

                                • blackhawkC17 10 months ago
                                  The issue is not Starlink. It's that the Brazilian government is too inept and corrupt to tackle illegal mining in its backyard. Many countries have huge landmasses (US, Canada, China, etc.), yet no one gets away with something as brash as illegal mining.
                                  • prepend 10 months ago
                                    Chainsaws are used as well. And fossil fuels. And electricity.

                                    I’m sure if the Feds raid gold mining they’ll find some copper wires and other infrastructure.

                                    • dyauspitr 10 months ago
                                      Ah the why ban guns since knives can kill people too argument.
                                      • prepend 10 months ago
                                        Different argument altogether.

                                        Starlink does nothing special to enable mining. Thousands of people and industries use it. It’s just infrastructure.

                                        I’m not arguing for replacements. I’m arguing that it’s stupid to blame infrastructure for the sins of the people using it.

                                        That’s like blaming vegetables because Hitler was a vegetarian.

                                    • alden5 10 months ago
                                      that's not a source, could you link the report?
                                    • tacker2000 10 months ago
                                      Bolsonaro