Elon Musk’s Starlink won't block Elon Musk’s X in Brazil, as required by court order Brazil's Supreme Court has backed an earlier decision to force local carriers to block Elon Musk's social network, X, as the dispute between the billionaire and the South American nation widens. The lengthy dispute centers on Musk's desire to unblock some X accounts that Brazil's courts have ordered be shut down for allegedly …
Is it arrogant when you're correct? He's very good at trolling yes - and I fear you have fallen for it. But he's also very good at being right and proving it by making things work.
Listen to his chat about first-principles thinking - you can't take that approach and make things better than competitors unless you actually understand those principles. I personally like to learn what I can from others, and get the popcorn out for when things get a bit spicy.
"But he's also very good at being right and proving it by making things work."
Is he though? He got very lucky from an early investment (not his idea, and not his money, and ultimately bought out by Compaq/AltaVista), from which point it's very hard to fail. Rich people rarely become poor, even if their financial decisions are appalling (see Twitter for example - his trolling there bit him royally in the backside, and even then he borrowed money to fund his forced purchase).
All his subsequent companies weren't his, just ones he liked and threw money at. SpaceX and Tesla, all very successful start-ups that he ended up financing.
Success also makes for a really lousy teacher. You don't look at the guy who rolled three sixes and ponder why he's so good at rolling dice, you look at what makes dice work.
Besides, while he claims that he's a free-speech libertarian, he spends a lot of time banning those who don't agree with him, and aggressively going after people who (say) publish a flight tracker of his private jet.
right? like he announced FSD working next year. and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after and then announcing the same shit the year after.
bit of a pattern about him being right!. as in fucking never right! but definitely far right!
still fucking useless and dangerous
In his case, "first principles" is letting someone else invent something, then buying it off them.
I'd rather not listen to him "chat", that would be part of my finite life-span wasted listening to a spoilt rich boy mansplaining to me things that I almost certainly have a better and more nuanced understanding of than something he dreamed up when he was stoned.
"my finite life-span wasted listening to a spoilt rich boy mansplaining to me things
Even "mansplaining" has a requirement for complete sentences to be valid. Elon has a hard time with that. Ketamine? Alcohol? Other?
These days I wait for Common Sense Skeptic to do a de-mumbled edit on Tesla Earnings calls. It's still dreams and lies, but they are easy to pick out in less time.
I think you could argue legal grounds. The notion of "piercing the corporate veil" is well-established. If X is >70% owned by Musk and Space X is >50% owned by Musk - as the Internet suggests - and given Musk's public statements of intention to defy the Brazilian justice system, there is an argument that the corporate structure is a fig leaf concealing Musk's personal direction of the companies and that they should therefore be treated as personal assets owned by the shareholders. Personal assets held in company A are not distinguishable from personal assets held in company B.
It's probably a longshot, but it could be enough to keep the legal wheels grinding until long after the case had any relevance.
And while potential-president Trump might be happy with the image of the US sequestrating the assets of foreign governments on behalf of Musk, I can't help feel that it would be a foreign policy challenge.
I think you could argue legal grounds. The notion of "piercing the corporate veil" is well-established. If X is >70% owned by Musk and Space X is >50% owned by Musk - as the Internet suggests - and given Musk's public statements of intention to defy the Brazilian justice system, there is an argument that the corporate structure is a fig leaf concealing Musk's personal direction of the companies and that they should therefore be treated as personal assets owned by the shareholders.
I think this is the danger of a personality cult controlling a web of companies. So X (the troll house formally known as Twitter) is its own distinct legal entitity and in trouble with the Brazilians. Maybe a little more complicated given there's possibly an X Brazil opco, which probably doesn't have much in the way of assets. Plus whatever Brazil has in the way of legislation around limited liability companies that sometimes means the only local asset is a nameplate on a wall of an in-country agent. Cayman Islands are fun like that. Then Starlink is an SPV that I don't think SpaceX owns, and probably structured that way so Starlink could be IPO'd or spun off if/when it looks like it might make a profit.
And then there's the loose cannon, Musk, who at any point in time might be speaking on behalf of X, Starlink, himself, or the principle owner of the X holding company. Which then could get interesting given defaming a judge or threatening to leak private conversations is rarely a wise move. But that's Musk for you. A decent sized claim against Musk could risk his shareholdings that pretty much underpin the entire web of businesses. Figuring out how that would play out isn't helped by most of the entities in the X empire being private.
It's probably a longshot, but it could be enough to keep the legal wheels grinding until long after the case had any relevance.
Yep. It'll keep lawyers in popcorn for a long time. It is kind of interesting though as a potential test case around what powers states have to sanction or shut down 'social' media companies.
We are dealing with criminal law; and also Brazilian law here. I don't think any of this stuff is going to apply.
Also, Starlink isn't complying with the court order to block X-Twitter, so even if all this separate legal entity stuff did apply, then Starlink would still be liable.
Also, Starlink isn't complying with the court order to block X-Twitter, so even if all this separate legal entity stuff did apply, then Starlink would still be liable
Yep, maybe, but it's also one of those 'And?' situations. So what exactly could do? I don't know what facilities Starlink has in Brazil, ie it doesn't need an earth station in every country. Most of its sales are online or via resellers and registration of terminals done.. Somewhere. They could pull Starlink's licence to operate services in Brazil but that wouldn't necessarily stop grey imports and people carrying on using terminals. So then Brazil might have to go after the end users, and might upset a few people using them for good things given Brazil's rather large, has lots of remote communities who don't have Internet access by any other means.
It's a bit like one of the original demands from Brazil, ie Twitter hires a compliance officer so they can be fined or jailed. Most of the remedies against Starlink seem out of Brazil's reach. IANAL, but I guess one option would be like enforcing overseas debt. So instruct lawyers in the US to make claims against X or Starlink and then hope that the US courts would enforce Brazil's demands. Which I guess would also be true for Musk defaming the judge. That claim might be more easily enforceable if it's monetary, but if custodial, Brazil would obviously have to try extraditing him. As long as he avoids Brazil for the forseable future, he's safe, which in the interests of justice, perhaps he shouldn't be.
I don't know what facilities Starlink has in Brazil, ie it doesn't need an earth station in every country.
Given the size of Brazil, it's likely they have quite a few, and the plug can be pulled on all of them. And Starlink might have just realised that:
Musk's Starlink backtracks and will comply with judge's order to block X in Brazil
Given the size of Brazil, it's likely they have quite a few, and the plug can be pulled on all of them. And Starlink might have just realised that
It might not, especially if/when more Starlink V2 satellites join the constellation and can do sat-sat comms. From a network design PoV, the obvious locations would be near Fortaleza and Rio, which is where the main submarine cables land, and for Rio, where Brazil's main IX is. It might be sensible to also have one in the west, but I haven't done LatAm stuff in a long time, so lost track of potential fibre routes west. Probably along existing roads/railways on account of mountains, forests, swamps etc being FUN! to try and lay fibre.
But like you say, this could be part of (what passes for) Musk thinking. So it's possible (or likely) that Brazil pulling the plug on any Starlink infrastructure in Brazil would also impact user's traffic in other countries as well. Which is all part of the great traffic engineering game. To give the best latency experience, which is kind of Starlink's USP vs other satellite broadband services, you have to consider route optimisation. That then leads to potentially interesting latency problems when you annoy countries that ended up acting as major transit points.
Which then gets into more interesting political problems. So whilst countries have those advantages of geography, IXs and landing stations, they can exert political clout. But if Starlink can get V2 working, it can potentially route around those problems and nations have fewer remedies. Brazil was threatening to fine users $9,000(?) a day, which seems a tad excessive but then satellite services have always made governments nervous because they can be very hard to restrict or control. Especially when the terminals tend to be small and easily concealed.
"Brazil's rather large, has lots of remote communities who don't have Internet access by any other means."
Starlink isn't the only satellite internet game in town. They aren't even the fastest or least expensive. They should have the fastest ping time, but remote communities aren't often loaded with avid gamers that worry about that sort of thing.
"Maybe a little more complicated given there's possibly an X Brazil opco"
And here you've managed to hit the nail on the head - there *was* a Brazil opco, until Musk shut it down a fortnight ago, presumably it consisted of a security guard and a janitor who are now out of work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/18/world/americas/elon-musk-x-brazil.html
"Then Starlink is an SPV that I don't think SpaceX owns,"
FWIW, Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX Musk owns 42% of SpaceX by equity and 79% of voting shares. He has 79% ownership in Xitter, although how much of that is collateral against loan to fund the buy out is another matter. By comparison, he only has about 13% ownership of Tesla (what most of the world know him for) although he's aiming to get that back up to about 25%.
So yeah, the "fig leaf" thing :-)
"although he's aiming to get that back up to about 25%."
Elon wants his friend and family, the Tesla Board of Directors, to come up with a way that gives him 25% voting control under threat of pillaging Tesla's AI and other technology development. If he's allowed the massive stock option package again, that would still take a number of years before all of it would be applicable and vest.
Elon already moves employees around between Tesla and his private enterprises. The last time I had an employee contract, there was a provision banning me from recruiting other employees to leave and work for me if I started another company or persuade them to leave the company for the competition. Why wouldn't a BoD implement this with a CEO or other senior executive? Tesla's board seems to work for the CEO rather than a more traditional scenario where the CEO works for them.
So yeah, the "fig leaf" thing :-)
This is something I'd love to see.. Not what's behind the fig leaf, but what's behind the financials. And also investors. So Starlink is owned by SpacX, who have their own set of investors. Who might be looking at the costs incurred with all the Starlink launches and wondering when, if ever they're going to get paid. Which may also explain the rumors of an imminent SpacX IPO so those investors can GTFO because the answer might be 'never'. Especially if Musk continues being a loose cannon. Which I suspect is why Starlink changed its mind around X-ban because Starlink investors are probably looking at the debt to revenues, and more importantly profit, very nervously.
A private company suing a foreign country in a US court to seize assets unrelated to the company due to a disagreement in that foreign country with the company (or part of its overall structure) over a legal decision in that foreign country, the consequence of which are entirely restricted to the company's activities and assets in that foreign country?
You think that sort of thing would pass? Wars have started over less. I know the US thinks their laws apply in all countries, but allowing private companies to do the same is beyond crazy.
Whataboutism at it's best.
Still to be clear here. Jets are an ITAR restricted item (or possibly EAR, I forget which one they're under nowadays). That means they need a licence to be sold, and you have to detail exactly who is purchasing the item, AND obtain approval for that. Especially when going to "certain designated countries". This was not done. The sale of the jet was very underhanded. It broke the rules, and so it's been reclaimed when they foolishly flew it to somewhere where it would be reclaimed for the US.
Additionally, there is the political aspect that in this case almost the entire world, including almost the entirety of South America, are saying that Maduro lost the most recent election, and needs to step aside. Things like this are an attempt to put additional pressure on him and his government. Will it work? Probably not. But you have to start somewhere when applying pressure to the dictator...
ITAR and EAR are American legislation, yes. But if you ever want to build something in a field affected by ITAR/EAR, using any American produced or designed component, then you learn to obey that legislation! Being cut-off from the entirety of the US supplier chain is going to screw you big time.
The fact is, that as annoying as any extra regulations are, so long as you're not trying to do the dodgy stuff, it's generally not too difficult to get all the paperwork sorted for this stuff. It's mostly involved with know your customer rules, and making sure that who you're selling to is the actual end user, and that whatever your building is not going to end up being shipped to some dodgy regime. Generally, that's also something you dont want, as a dodgy regime is just as likely to take your product apart, reverse engineer it, and hand it to the Chinese to build significantly cheaper versions.
The reasons for that are complicated, and I'm guessing you don't care about them, so I won't bother going into it. The other important fact there is that the U.S. government took the plane. Not a random company, not a specific company like its manufacturer, but a government. It is much easier for a government to take property from a foreign government, either following or ignoring law, international, treaty, or local. It is much harder for a company to do so. Most courts will ignore the request by saying they don't have jurisdiction. If they find a judge who agrees to let them do it, the country will appeal it and it's likely that the next judge will cancel that. If they get a judgement and try to enforce it, they are likely to have other problems, because if you go after the money that the Brazilian government might hold in a large New York bank, Brazil can threaten that any dollars taken from their account there will be taken back from that bank's holdings in Brazil, holdings which cannot be quickly removed to prevent them from doing that. Those banks do a lot of business in Brazil and don't want to pick a fight, so they can find reasons why the judgement needs to be reconsidered and, since it's likely not to be legally binding either, they are likely to have it reversed before any hard decisions need to be made.
This applies whether the country is democratic or authoritarian and no matter how justified their action is. It is why companies that invested a lot of money in budding dictatorships often lost it. People who stored their money in Venezuela or Russia, for instance, often lost it and were unable to get anyone to give it back. We may have agreed that they deserved it back, but they weren't likely to get permission to start selling off anything those countries had to take.
"The US has seized a Venezuelan jet its government use for transporting its leaders around"
There's a lot of weirdness surrounding that jet. That it was left parked in the Dominican Republic hadn't been well explained.
I find it odd that The Glorious Leader didn't have a much larger jet. Something equivalent to a Boeing Business Jet. The Falcon doesn't seem large enough to transport the required security team for a most beloved politician such as Maduro.
The companies are so closely related (by having Musk as the huge majority shareholder), they are responsible for each other’s debt. Exactly the same thing would happen in Europe or the USA.
And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy than Musk. Remember “pedoboy”? There is nobody in the UK who doesn’t hate him.
I think you might be able to pierce the corporate veil and hold Must accountable for X as X is just a skinsuit that Musk wears. But SpaceX is a separate legal entity with it's own executives running it.
Now if they take Musk to court and extract fines from him then that could force him to sell his SpaceX shares.
As soon as SpaceX toes the party line, and refuses to follow a court order to block X, they have just provided prima facie evidence that they are part of one corporate group under Musk's direct control
There is no reason for them not to obey the court order if they are actually an independent business.
"Now if they take Musk to court and extract fines from him then that could force him to sell his SpaceX shares."
The thing to remember is that Brazil is a sovereign nation with it's own laws and a court system that interprets those laws according to their own tradition and precedent. A lot of comments seem to be based on what US or European courts might do or have done which makes no odds. Given the nature of Xitter's business and lack of assets in country, the Brazilian courts may have the ability to secure possible fines and judgements against X by holding property valuable to the defendant from his other ventures.
The last thing that Starlink wants is the precedent set that they can be banned in countries and regions since there is already only a very slim chance the company can earn any long term profits and only a very tiny percentage of the world's population can afford the service. Sure, a village could club together and get service based at the main hut, but the need or value to that village is minimal with the money being better spent elsewhere. The internet can be a very powerful tool, but it comes after things such as electricity, communications (local) and health care resources.
This does open up an interesting possibility that Brazil could, in theory, decide that the Starlink satellites themselves are forfeit, and that, when directly above Brazilian territory, technically they are in Brazilian airspace, and under Brazilian jurisdiction. It's just as well for Musk, that Brazil is not a major space power, and that they don't possess the ability to de-orbit a satellite that is over their territory. Other nations do possess this ability, for example, the US has the X-37B autonomous space plane which in theory could bring a small satellite down to Earth undamaged, and the Chinese government have proven their ability to hit satellites with missiles, much to the consternation of other spacefaring nations, because nobody wants a Kessler Syndrome.
And how, pray tell, can you know whether the aforementioned user is not a person with the sort of physical disability that this term would previously have been used to describe? In which case, are you saying that people using offensive terms to describe themselves is somehow offensive to your own sensibilities.
Of course you know no such thing, and I know no such thing. Let's not go round making assumptions about people and looking to be offended behalf of others over harmless things like user names. If that user has referred to you as a "spazturtle", then you might have a point about it being offensive, but whaboutery is bollocks as well now, isn't it?
Maybe just reel your neck in and engage in the conversation like an adult?
Again, how do you know that that poster is not a Cerebral Palsy (or Muscular Dystrophy) sufferer and using that term to refer to themselves ironically?
Do you actually have one of these conditions, and are offended by it? I have a very strong suspicion that this is not the case, and that you are being "offended on behalf of". it;s a strange hill to die on, when the internet is awash with actual discrimination and hate speech that genuinely harms people.
And your completely infantile response to this (the irony of this, when complaining about what is at worst an infantile insult), is to request that I "go fuck myself". You won't be getting the Nobel Prize for Literature any time soon with level of eloquence, my friend.
> "SpaceX will sue in a US court to seize Brazilian assets stored in the US and will likely win because it is a separate company to X and there is no legal ground to seize SpaceX property to cover X's debts."
Surely the correct response would be to unilaterally seize assets of Paraguay instead. It's a separate country but on the same continent, so must be jointly liable, right??? That seems to be the Brazilian argument.
It's likely a threat to use an Investor State Dispute Settlement in a country where Brasil has a trade agreement.
US judges are also far too keen to hear extra-territorial disputes. And if Brazil lose (even by default such as not showing up) and don't pay because they don't recognise the jurisdiction of the US court, then Musk could ask the US court to cease goods belonging to Brazil which are located in the US.
The thing to remember here is that Brazil cutting off X is not a whim. X was outrageously involved in the cultivation of fake news to bolster attempts to overthrow the elected government.
So Brazil isn't backing down. Any penalty Musk might arrange for Brazil will have an immediate effect on Brazil - US relations. At a government level. But also at the level of ordinary people.
Although there was clear evidence of narcissism earlier, Musk's treatment of Vernon Unsworth in 2018 and the "Funding secured" lie are what caught my attention. He delayed the return to work at Tesla with some COVIDiocy that caused health officials to waste time lawyering up when they could have been getting others safely back to work. Musk first mentioned "woke mind virus" in late 2021 and ramped up his hatred of trans people over time. The news mostly switched to his offer for Twitter (April 2022) and his attempt to escape deal he signed that proved futile by the following October. After that, the news was about him cheating former Twitter employees out of severance, non-payment of bills and sending Tesla employees to work at Twitter because he drove away too many critical employees.
There used to be a waiting list to buy Teslas. In late 2022 satellite photography showed unsold Teslas filling factory car parks. The price of new and second hand Teslas crashed at the start of 2023 and continued with a downward trend.
The timing shows that the way Musk ran Twitter is what caused people to pay attention, not his earlier anti-woke tweets. It is difficult to separate his despicable business practices from his support for right wing extremists on Twitter. Some combination of the two caused the backlash once people started paying attention. The people you consider left brain pillocks exist in sufficient quantities to send Tesla's growth negative. The threat of the same happening to them is what caused other companies to cease advertising on Twitter.
If you think I am wrong you can put your money where your mouth is. SpaceX and X are private companies which limits the number of shareholders. Tesla is publicly traded so you can either buy Tesla shares or you may be able to buy some Twitter debt - the banks don't want it.
There's no waiting lists anymore because people have no money. In the US, people don't save up for a car, they finance. With high interest rates, that's not funny.
Tesla's inventory is in flux due to exports waiting for ships - but I agree it has been building up. But at least the entry-level cars are very affordable and very good value for money.
As for the prices of used cars coming down - do you belong to the class of people who thought a car is an appreciating asset?
People complained that there was no 2nd hand market for EVs and that the used ones were overpriced. Now that there is a market, people complain that prices are coming down.
Just see what a two year old EQS is still worth...
> As for the prices of used cars coming down - do you belong to the class of people who thought a car is an appreciating asset?
It's generally taken for granted in a context like this that it's like-for-like "used Tesla values" in general being compared and referred to. *Not* the pointlessly obvious observation that- in the vast majority of cases- any given specific example of a used car is going to gradually fall in value over time.
Do you belong to the class of people who don't understand that?
"Tesla's inventory is in flux due to exports waiting for ships"
Not at all. You can also look at the Cybertruck where Elon was saying that there were 2 million reservations and not even a year into very limited production, anybody can place an order with delivery in about a month as opposed to the 8 years that would be expected with 2 million reservations and a nominal maximum production of 125,000/year (not that they can make enough battery cells for that).
A boat load a twaddle is generated about Tesla that doesn't come from the horse's mouth. Tesla (Elon) also doesn't say anything to correct misinformation if it makes them look good such as orders outpacing production for up to a year. The opposite is often the case these days. It's been some time since every Tesla vehicle starting down the production line had a customer name attached to it. Some are being delivered to customers with no clean up after obviously having been stored in a field for some time. If you bought a car at a dealer, they'd whisk your purchase around back for a good wash and final check over while you were signing all of the paperwork.
There used to be a waiting list to buy Teslas. In late 2022 satellite photography showed unsold Teslas filling factory car parks. The price of new and second hand Teslas crashed at the start of 2023 and continued with a downward trend.
This one has always puzzled me, especially when Tesla's accounts always seemed to nudge into profit thanks to selling EV credits, which they get for every vehicle produced rather than sold. Those often seemed out of whack compared to production figures. Also a risk given other automakers had to buy EV credits to cover their ICE sales. But now those competitors are producing their own EVs, the market for the credits might have tanked.. Just as increased competition has tanked Tesla sales in general.
"He delayed the return to work at Tesla with some COVIDiocy that caused health officials to waste time lawyering up when they could have been getting others safely back to work."
What's your reference on this? Elon reopened the Tesla plant in California against the orders of the State during lockdown.
since posting the Ugly Truckling comment
I have now come across the Deplorean LOL :o)
anyone else have any other options for this awful machine
and, as of the end of September 2024, still not seen a single one in UK, we Do see the odd Tesla though, not for me either, apart from high cost to purchase, the fire catching ability, the inability to sell as second hand if mileage is anywhere near average, due to the prohibitive cost of replacing the battery pack, recharging taking ages, when fuel is pumped in and you have moved on within 10 minutes of arriving at the station, and the fact that the battery life is NOWHERE near the basic standard for the ICE, my old Volvo V40, over 150 000 miles, still going strong, when I had to sell due to illness :o( was snapped up
have had bikes with excess of 100 000 miles and still running sweet, the ethos of the EV is not lost on me, just the ability it has to be able to actually do it
Top Gear, years ago, did a feature on an old Toyota pick-up, trying various ways to destroy it. I think they managed it in the end, but one of the memorable attempts was to park it in on a slipway in the Severn Estuary at low tide (an area with one of the highest tidal ranges in the world), allowing the tide to come in and go back out again and covering it in estuarine mud. The engine still started after that. I can't imagine what would happen to a "Cybertruck" under those conditions, but I'd put money on it not being driveable.
Also, there was the thing where the Cybertruck couldn't be imported into Israel, because it claims to be bulletproof, thus requiring a special import licence, but also doesn't meet the standards for that import licence, because it's not actually really bulletproof.
Apparently it cannot even handle a car wash, so submerging the Cybertruck as completely as the Toyota truck would make that experiment last only half an episode of Top Gear, and cop a lot of deserved derision..
:)
I deem the Toyota series plus the two part one with the late Sabine Schmidt clocking the Nürnberg Ring with a white van at only a shade under what Jeremy Clarkson did with a Jag pretty much the best the Top Gear team made. Love Clarkson or hate him, but that was *seriously* entertaining.
Agreed; this was actually some of the best television made in the last few decades, despite being presented by Clarkson (but not because of him). He has alternated over time between being mildly amusing and absolutely loathsome, and I think one of the main issues with him is many people's inability to determine what is tongue-in-cheek, and what is serious. Sadly, it seems he is included in that group himself, and has started to drink ever more of his own Kool-Aid in recent years.
"I wonder in what country Musk does have debts or fines . . ."
I was laughing for a fair bit of time when I read a report that Elon stopped paying office rent in London and the property was ultimately owned by the King. There were hopeful visions of being cast back in time where Elon would be 'invited' for a tour of the Tower of London where a special 'stage' would have been constructed for him. Have times really improved? When a foreign peasant can stiff a king of his rents on sovereign property without penalty doesn't seem like progress. Don't jump to conclusions about me being a monarchist, but how much further down would I be if I were the landlord rather than a king in being able to demand and receive back rent.
Loads of tech companies think Internet = no country can stop me. To be fair quite a lot of people in IT seem to share that view, when it comes to discussions on governments trying to control the internet on these very forums.
The internet is of course global - so in a lot of cases you can get away with ignoring the law in one country. But only successfully if you don't really make any money there. Or I suppose, if you do all your transactions in crypto. And even then, only if the government isn't really motivated to try and stop you - given how often crypto can be traced.
But once you've got money there, the courts can seize it or block payments being made to you.
It's an interesting question whether there should be the legal right to take money from one company for the actions of another - even with a significant co-owner. You'd have to look at Brazillian law to know if that's allowed - him being owner of one and a major shareholder of another. Might give his minority shareholders pause though...
There are ways of getting at governments in international courts - but it's harder. And even if you win, you often get overturned on appeal. Some of the companies that held Argentina's debt (issued under US law) when they defaulted in 2001 kept suing them all over the world. Got an Argentinian Navy training ship seized in Africa, until a higher court in that country ruled it was illegal. They also got interest payments to other US debtors (on bonds that hadn't been defaulted on) siezed to pay their debts - thus causing another default - that one was tied up in NY courts for years - I don't know if they settled, got paid, or gave up. But that's the opposite effect, where governments forget they're only sovereign at home - you can default on all your domestic debt and nobody can do anything - but if you get cheaper debt in foreign jurisdictions you're under that country's law (not your own) and can't default in the same way. When Greece defaulted in the Eurocrisis, the debts under UK law got paid in full.
There was a really determined investor after Russia defaulted in the 90s who tried to get the Russian embassy in Paris (I think he got a lower court order that was overturned) - managed to get various Aeroflot jets grounded with injunctions - though I think he finally lost all those cases too. I seem to remember he even had a go at seizing some MiGs on display at the Paris air show.
But Starlink wants ground stations and needs to license radio spectrum.
If he breaks the Brazilian court order with Starlink then the Brazilian regulator can take away his spectrum license and sell it to someone else. Or just jam it. Plus Brazilian customers have to pay for Starlink. The courts can intercept that cash to pay the fines, or just ban local banks and credit card companies from processing the payments.
Also, if you get into disputes with spectrum regulators, you may struggle to get approval in other countries. Ignore the fact I’m operating illegally in Brazil, I promise to be good in your country. Honest!
I think you just figured out why Musk created Starlink - "SPACE internet = no country can stop me!"
Yeah, that logic kinda fails when you need ground-based receivers, and a country can just make the ownership or operation of those illegal. Since they emit RF at a known wavelength, which obeys the inverse-square law and can be triangulated, they can be tracked down with the simple use of a TV Detector Van*. This demonstrates not only the arrogance, but also the idiocy of such companies.
*Other RF-pinpointing equipment is probably available, but at the very least, we could send everyone who has previously bought one of these things increasingly severe-sounding letters, threatening to send the detector van round.
"RF at a known wavelength, which obeys the inverse-square law and can be triangulated, they can be tracked down with the simple use of a TV Detector Van*. This demonstrates not only the arrogance, but also the idiocy of such companies."
The ground stations have to tie into the internet backbone so the installations are exactly stealth to begin with. Local permits would be required for the construction and trying to build them without permissions would mean they could be shut down far more simply. Since a stealth installation wouldn't likely be paying the required taxes, that's an even faster track to them being closed in the manner of "do not pass Go, do not collect $200".
I'm not referring to the ground stations used for backhaul here (which would obviously get switched off right away), but the individual receivers used by the customers. To make an analogy, it's the difference between the hulking great 5G tower at the end of the street, and your mobile phone that connects to it, except with satellite internet, the "phone" bit talks to the nearest satellite, which in turn talks to the base station, which could be hundreds of miles away, and not at the end of your road.
There's probably some capacity for the satellites to "mesh network", so deactivating the ground stations would mean a longer ping and transmission back down to Earth in another country, but I'm sure that would have knock-on effects with both latency and bandwidth, especially given the size of Brazil.
"Or I suppose, if you do all your transactions in crypto."
Crypto is a pain in the bum to use and there's a cost as well. Will the average person be motivated to use crypto just to be on social media? I highly doubt that advertisers are going to bother paying for ad space with crypto. Doing so might not be illegal, but going through a comprehensive tax audit every year might convince them to stop.
Mach Diamond,
I agree. Crypto isn't a viable solution for a proper business. The transaction costs are enormous, and most people can't be bothered. It's not all that untraceable anyway - should some company try it, and the government be motivated to stop them.
Local advertisers coudn't use it anyway. If you've decided to operate in Brazil illegally, then legit Brazillian companies can't pay you by whatever means.
But you could take money from users and claim it's on grounds of defending "freedom". Like supporting users in China to get round the Great Firewall. But I imagine he won't risk that, with a Tesla factory in China.
"But I imagine he won't risk that, with a Tesla factory in China."
I'd love to see a copy of the contract Elon had to sign to have the factory in China. Whatever they put in it has Elon nervous enough to not criticize China as he does everywhere else. For as much as people say Tesla is a US company, the Shanghai plant could represent a majority of their revenue. Tesla exports Chinese made vehicles to Canada when they have two factories in the US.
Lying is a central part of the Musk operating model (lying largely, but not limited to, investors). When he claims he is against a lords and peasants system or in favour of free speech that is just air-cover for his actions. All his actions show the exact opposite of what he says.
Musk tends to take the side of regimes with autocratic tendencies (Bolsonaro, Trump, Putin, Xi, House of Saud, Modi) over democratically elected ones. Musk attacks any news or information source that is not controlled by billionaires (NPR, Wikipedia). He attacks journalists and journalism because he doesn’t like them uncovering truths that are inconvenient for the elite or are generally 'kicking up' (journalists and comedians were in the first ban wave after he purchased Twitter). Together with the Saudis Musk spent billions closing down Twitter because they didn’t like ordinary people being able to orchestrate grass roots campaigns against elites (Arab Spring, climate change awareness, MeToo, BLM).
In this case Musk sides with the latest far-right coup attempt in Brazil. In the US Musk plays a key role in undermining the coming presidential elections. Musk always tries to blame a democratically elected government for his own business failures.
Look at his actions, not his words. Musk always takes the sides of the elites. He always kicks down. So Musk happily takes instructions from the Chinese or Indian government but not from the Brazilian courts.
Paying X user shadowbanned for criticising cybertruck
Sadly, it hasn't crushed his hero worshipping..
Absolutely
A challenge for the mainstream media: can you stop saying that Elon Musk is a free speech absolutist?
Over the past few years, we’ve had a number of posts highlighting just how laughable it is that Elon Musk claims that he’s a “free speech absolutist.” He never has been. Remember that even before he took over Twitter, he had a long history of suppressing and attacking speech that challenged him. He had fired employees who spoke up in ways he didn’t like. He banned someone from buying a Tesla for complaining about a Tesla launch event. He’s fired union organizers. He threatened to sue a Tesla critic
[..]
Can We Finally Stop Pretending Elon Musk Is A “Free Speech Absolutist”? He’s Not
TikTok, Telegram, X-Musk ... are all getting globalist government's threats and punishments. Is there a pattern here ?
First they came for the **** but I'm no *** so I didn't care ... and when they came for me, there was nobody left to defend me
As for the real matter : the Brazilian judge didn't ask for the removal (=moderation) of some particular content, he asked for the blocking (=censoring) of an entire account. While one could argue that the former has merit, the latter has none.
Musk – who claims to promote a maximal definition of free speech
Absolute horseshit. You only have to post the word "cisgender" to see exactly where that supposedly idealistic promotion of free speech ends; that is, if the fact that he sues people for exercising their free speech right to not advertise on his platform wasn't already copious enough evidence of his sincerity.
So, basically, the man is so thin-skinned, and so transphobic (about his own offspring) that the mere use of a term used to distinguish between transgender and non-transgender people triggers him to such an extent that he calls it hate speech. All the while unironically refusing to restrict or block actual hate speech, and in some instances, promoting it himself, by reposting far-right conspiracy-theories that aim to spread such hate.
What this “judge” is doing is simply outrageous. Freezing the assets of another company because he can’t control X is insane. The US government should give him 24 hours to reverse these rulings and then let the military use him for target practice.
We shouldn’t let commie dictators do this to American companies.
That so called judge isn’t following any law. And yes, it’s about damned time America starts exporting freedom to the rest of the world. Wipe out that judge for violating the rights of an American company, what exactly is Brazil going to do about it? The people would celebrate. Time to stop these damned dictators.
> "Time to stop these damned dictators."
You mean the ones who insist that their way is the only right way of doing things and try to enforce that notion through violence and wars. Yes, I agree: time to stop the USA.
(I was going to put Americans, but that includes plenty more liberal people who aren't in the united states)
People who have publicly said that if they are re-elected, then people will "never have to vote again". Because that sounds nothing whatsoever like a dictatorship, right?
It's worth remembering, too, that a far-left (communist) dictatorship, and a far right (fascist) dictatorship are functionally indistinguishable; you get a small group at the helm living in luxury, and everyone else gets shat upon. My advice would be to strongly avoid electing either; ones formed by force or via a coup are harder to prevent, but luckily that coup attempt in the US failed.
A bunch of undocumented tourists following undercover FBI agents inside the Capitol to take selfies doesn't count as a coup.
Or maybe I misunderstood and you meant the person who never received any electoral votes forcing the sitting president to step down or be forced out of office so she could take over the candidacy? Maybe that's the coup you referred to?
One minute they are tourists, the next they are antifa, the next they are fighting for constitutional freedom and are political prisoners.
I wish you guys would get your story straight.
By the way, why is it always that users/channels/website with "truth" or "reality" in the title go on to spout the exact opposite?
Since you clearly don't know what communism is, here is a handy link to the Wikipedia article on Communist States. Note how it includes a handy map of which countries have at any point had a Communist government. Note also how this doesn't include any country in the Americas other than Cuba.
For reference, Brazil is an elected democracy, and in case you had forgotten, the previous incumbent was a far-right dickhead, like Trump. The people decided, in a fair and internationally observed election, that they wanted a left-of-centre government instead, and re-elected the previous incumbent, "Lula".
For some strange reason, I'm more inclined to trust what international observers have to say, rather than some RWNJ with skin in the game. Funny that.
If I were in your boots, which it appears are in the US, firmly in the Donald Trump cess-pool, I'd be far more concerned about your own candidates consistent efforts to undermine and nullify a free and fair election in your own country, even under a crooked "collegiate" electoral system that places an over-representative bias on votes in "swing states" rather than using the actual popular vote for it (under which Trump would never have won any elections at all). It's almost as if the far right are willing to turn a blind eye to vote rigging when it works in their favour, but are very keen to seek it even when there is no evidence of its existence, when they lose legitimately.
Now, having said that, onto the most important part of this reply:
Kindly fuck off. We sadly have no way of blocking forum trolls from our feeds here, otherwise, I'd be sure that I couldn't see your drivel. Even Jeel has made comments here that I agree with (and found myself up-voting), but yours are pure ignorant bullshittery.
Wow, 2 downvotes for posting a factual news update?
The Mukskits are out in force today!
https://www.ft.com/content/8789d9b8-a466-45c9-94b0-8e409683bb1e
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
