Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[crazy canuck]

You were responding to BB's post, which wrongly assumed the actions described in Jacob's post was because of some action by the Court.

Sure but I said nothing about Jacob's post because I had nothing to say about it. That's why I deleted that bit and followed up on what BBoy said about Brazil's judiciary. And again I'm not sure about corruption but I think they are very much political actors.

I have no opinion whatsoever on Twitter being blocked and Starlink's accounts frozen.

Right.  We might be saying the same thing.  It was not fair to be taking a swipe at the judiciary.  My reason why it was unfair is different than yours.  The Judiciary hasn't yet done anything in response to Musk saying he will breach the order to appoint a representative of the company in Brazil.

It is ironic that in a thread where Musk is saying he is above the law, BB comes along and says, you know the courts are probably corrupt.

[Valmy]

Will Musk's confrontational battle with one of the world's largest nations over this nonsense have any impact on his other business interests?

This is why I think he is increasingly becoming a liability for Tesla and SpaceX. Why the shareholders seem to be fine with all this constant bad press is beyond me.

[Grey Fox]

I don't see how what he has done can be characterized as damage to easy and free exchange of ideas.

Free? Doesn't he charge money to boost you and get your ideas out there?

I'm unclear on this.  Does he charge everyone who posts?

No.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a statutory requirement that a non-resident business in Brazil must designate a legal in-country representative. That's a very typical regulatory requirement. It is undisputed that X is not compliant.  So the shutdown order in itself seems kosher.

The issue that X has raised is that its prior rep was unfairly threatened with criminal investigation. I can't assess how legit that claim is. However, even if true, it doesn't explain why they refuse to name a new rep. Musk doesn't have the credibility to raise concerns about speech regulation in Brazil because he notoriously complied in full with Erdogan's abuse of the platform to muzzle the Turkish opposition.  Looks like manufactured outrage to me.

[Sheilbh]

The issue that X has raised is that its prior rep was unfairly threatened with criminal investigation. I can't assess how legit that claim is. However, even if true, it doesn't explain why they refuse to name a new rep. Musk doesn't have the credibility to raise concerns about speech regulation in Brazil because he notoriously complied in full with Erdogan's abuse of the platform to muzzle the Turkish opposition.  Looks like manufactured outrage to me.

Although, as James Ball has pointed out, from the stats we have Twitter is vastly, vastly more responsive to requests for information from law enforcement in Europe under Musk than it was before (and actually has more data on those blue tick users because they're paying).

For all the bombast about speech regulation, they spend a lot less time and money challenging law enforcement seeking to identify users. Certainly in the UK, from what I've heard, Meta, Apple etc will often push back and challenge law enforcement requests - Twitter don't anymore.

I think it's mainly that he's gutted legal and compliance teams globally as he just sees them as costs. They struggle to meet active obligations, and they won't fight others - because both those options cost money. Negligence and cooperation with state authorities in their requests is cheaper. The rest is spin.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it's mainly that he's gutted legal and compliance teams globally as he just sees them as costs. They struggle to meet active obligations, and they won't fight others - because both those options cost money. Negligence and cooperation with state authorities in their requests is cheaper. The rest is spin.

I think this is spot on.
It's also why I suspect the Brazil episode is grandstanding drama, perhaps by both sides.

[Barrister]

You were responding to BB's post, which wrongly assumed the actions described in Jacob's post was because of some action by the Court.

Sure but I said nothing about Jacob's post because I had nothing to say about it. That's why I deleted that bit and followed up on what BBoy said about Brazil's judiciary. And again I'm not sure about corruption but I think they are very much political actors.

I have no opinion whatsoever on Twitter being blocked and Starlink's accounts frozen.

Right.  We might be saying the same thing.  It was not fair to be taking a swipe at the judiciary.  My reason why it was unfair is different than yours.  The Judiciary hasn't yet done anything in response to Musk saying he will breach the order to appoint a representative of the company in Brazil.

It is ironic that in a thread where Musk is saying he is above the law, BB comes along and says, you know the courts are probably corrupt.

It's just fascinating in a thread where I have said a couple times "a pox on both their houses" that you claim it's "not fair" to be taking a swipe at the Brazilian judiciary.

CC, my friend, this is South America.

I can not (and have not) tried to decide who is in the right, or who is in the wrong, in this particular dispute.  But the Brazilian judiciary is hardly of impeccable reputation and above reproach.

I am not a member of the bar of Brazil, or any of its states.  I can say these things.

I can cite no less an authority than Eugenio, my brother's father-in-law, and retired Brazilian police officer, for this opinion.  If you don't accept that, then like I said - this is the judicial system that both sent Lula to jail for almost two years, then claimed the entire thing was unjust and threw it all out, as a data point for the questionableness of Brazilian justice.

I get it - you hate it when people question Canadian judge's decisions.  I think there's some room to do so - but that's not the case here.  This is South America.

[crazy canuck]

You were responding to BB's post, which wrongly assumed the actions described in Jacob's post was because of some action by the Court.

Sure but I said nothing about Jacob's post because I had nothing to say about it. That's why I deleted that bit and followed up on what BBoy said about Brazil's judiciary. And again I'm not sure about corruption but I think they are very much political actors.

I have no opinion whatsoever on Twitter being blocked and Starlink's accounts frozen.

Right.  We might be saying the same thing.  It was not fair to be taking a swipe at the judiciary.  My reason why it was unfair is different than yours.  The Judiciary hasn't yet done anything in response to Musk saying he will breach the order to appoint a representative of the company in Brazil.

It is ironic that in a thread where Musk is saying he is above the law, BB comes along and says, you know the courts are probably corrupt.

It's just fascinating in a thread where I have said a couple times "a pox on both their houses" that you claim it's "not fair" to be taking a swipe at the Brazilian judiciary.

CC, my friend, this is South America.

I can not (and have not) tried to decide who is in the right, or who is in the wrong, in this particular dispute.  But the Brazilian judiciary is hardly of impeccable reputation and above reproach.

I am not a member of the bar of Brazil, or any of its states.  I can say these things.

I can cite no less an authority than Eugenio, my brother's father-in-law, and retired Brazilian police officer, for this opinion.  If you don't accept that, then like I said - this is the judicial system that both sent Lula to jail for almost two years, then claimed the entire thing was unjust and threw it all out, as a data point for the questionableness of Brazilian justice.

I get it - you hate it when people question Canadian judge's decisions.  I think there's some room to do so - but that's not the case here.  This is South America.

I'm not sure how you are having difficulty determining who is in the right and who is in the wrong here.

Musk has not complied with a requirement that is standard in pretty much every country in which which a foreign company is registered to do business. They have not pointed the person who will represent the company in that jurisdiction.  The court ordered that they appointed such a representative And gave additional time for that to occur.  Simply refuses to comply with that basic requirement.

When the foreign corporation refuses to comply with the local law regarding registration that foreign corporation is prohibited from carrying on business.  Doesn't matter whether it's Brazil or Canada the law in that regard is the same.

This seems an odd hill to die on for you.  Musk seems to have that effect on people.

[Valmy]

I can not (and have not) tried to decide who is in the right, or who is in the wrong, in this particular dispute.  But the Brazilian judiciary is hardly of impeccable reputation and above reproach.

Sure. I am more questioning Musk's government relations than the Brazil government being pure and good. As the CEO of...um...X I guess it is his job to keep business functioning there and deal with regulatory and legal matters. he failed.

And probably made life more difficult for Tesla and SpaceX as well.

So another amazing job by our 21st century boy genius.

[Sophie Scholl]

I feel like he only accelerated the rot. Just like once upon a time, we had lots of wide eyed optimise about facebook. I remember when people still had their class schedules on their facebook pages without thinking how that could facilitate stalking.

Oh, for sure. That being said, the revocation of blue checks, the selling of them, and the random forced distribution of them has totally destroyed the purpose of verified and relevant accounts and sources having blue checks. No longer can you have some degree of confidence in what the source is posting. Also, the platforming of rightwing, all the way to literal Nazi accounts, and the silencing of anyone Elon doesn't like really took it from accelerating the rot to promoting the growth of rot and removing any healthy material left behind.

[Jacob]

From what I understand (from the internet) going after companies owned by the same entity/ person is standard legal practice in Brazil - precisely because people have tried to pull the Musk "THIS company doesn't have a presence in Brazil" dodge.

Secondly re: political judges - the chief judge driving this is not a friend of Lula's, so making that connection is - as I understand it - spurious. It'd be a bit like assuming Roberts is doing Biden's bidding.

[Tamas]

Grandstanding maybe a part of it but at the end of the day, the court had the right to do this and they didn't shriek from keeping this buffoon accountable. No chance a supposedly more "civilised" court would have dared.

[Sheilbh]

Secondly re: political judges - the chief judge driving this is not a friend of Lula's, so making that connection is - as I understand it - spurious. It'd be a bit like assuming Roberts is doing Biden's bidding.

Oh sure - my point is that from what I've read that the judiciary are independent political actors (with their own political agenda) in Brazil. That doesn't mean they're doing Lula's bidding.

In fact they helped provide the cover of investigating corruption which led to Dilma being impeached and Lula being imprisoned during his presidential campaign in 2018. By 2022 the judicial position was that following investigations there was no evidence of crimes around Dilma and Lula's convictions were squashed on technical/formal grounds. I can believe Dilma was the centre of a network of corruption and should have been impeached and that Lula deserved to go to prison - or that there weren't actually any crimes and Lula's conviction was only the result of biased judges in courts with no jurisdiction, not real crimes and convictions. I really struggle to believe both.

As I say, the cynical reading is that in 2017-8 the Brazilian elite considered another Lula/PT term the big risk as Bolsonaro wasn't a serious candidate at that point, in 2022 Lula was the only way to beat Bolsonaro. The politics changed - so the law followed.

The Supreme Court Justice who issued the order against Twitter is an example of that thin line of politics and judiciary in Brazil. He held various political positions in Sao Paolo before being appointed Minister of Justice in the administration that followed Dilma's impeachment and, after a year in office, was appointed to the Supreme Court. Not (absolutely not) necessarily sympathetic with Lula or doing the (Lula/PT) government's work for them, but is very political.

[crazy canuck]

From what I understand (from the internet) going after companies owned by the same entity/ person is standard legal practice in Brazil - precisely because people have tried to pull the Musk "THIS company doesn't have a presence in Brazil" dodge.

Secondly re: political judges - the chief judge driving this is not a friend of Lula's, so making that connection is - as I understand it - spurious. It'd be a bit like assuming Roberts is doing Biden's bidding.

On our first point, not just in Brazil.  Piercing a corporate veil is a remedy used throughout the world.  Here it was appropriate because X refused to appoint a representative.

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

Musk's X banned in Brazil after disinformation row



X, formerly Twitter, has been banned in Brazil after failing to meet a deadline set by a Supreme Court judge to name a new legal representative in the country.

Alexandre de Moraes ordered the "immediate and complete suspension" of the social media platform until it complies with all court orders and pays existing fines.

The row began in April, with the judge ordering the suspension of dozens of X accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation.

Reacting to the decision, X owner Elon Musk said: "Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes."

The social media network is said to be used by at least a 10th of the nation's 200 million inhabitants.

By Saturday morning some users had reported access to the platform was no longer possible.

It closed its office in Brazil earlier this month, saying its representative had been threatened with arrest if she did not comply with orders it described as "censorship" - as well as illegal under Brazilian law.

Justice Moraes had ordered that X accounts accused of spreading disinformation - many supporters of the former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro - must be blocked while they are under investigation.

He said the company's legal representatives would be held liable if any accounts were reactivated.

X has been threatened with fines for refusing to comply with this order, with the company and Mr Musk joining critics in Brazil in accusing the judge as being left-wing.

It is the latest in a series of rows involving the tech billionaire - who has clashed with the EU over the regulation of X and earlier this month became embroiled in a war of words with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

The head of Brazil's telecommunications agency, which has been tasked with suspending the platform, said he is "proceeding with the compliance" to do so, according to Reuters news agency.

Justice Moraes has given companies such as Apple and Google a five-day deadline to remove X from its application stores and block its use on iOS and Android systems.

He added that people or businesses using means such as VPNs (virtual private network) to access the platform could be fined R$50,000 (£6,700).

According to the judge's order, a ban will be in effect until X names a new legal representative in the country and pays fines for violating Brazilian law.

In a previous post from one of its official accounts, X had said it would not comply with the demands.

"Soon, we expect Judge Alexandre de Moraes will order X to be shut down in Brazil – simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents," the post said.

"The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil's own laws. We simply won't do that."

Meanwhile, the bank accounts of Mr Musk's satellite internet firm Starlink have been frozen in Brazil following an earlier order by the country's Supreme Court.

Starlink responded with a post on X which said the "order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied - unconstitutionally - against X."

Justice Moraes gained prominence after his decisions to restrict social media platforms in the country.

He is also investigating Mr Bolsonaro and his supporters for their roles in an alleged attempted coup on 8 January last year.

X is not the first social media company to come under pressure from authorities in Brazil.

Last year, Telegram was temporarily banned over its failure to cooperate with requests to block certain profiles.

Meta's messaging service Whatsapp also faced temporary bans in 2015 and 2016 for refusing to comply with police requests for user data.