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.”
Sure, it’s not as neat and clean as that and I acknowledge that, but at the end of the day, a tautological approach to either free speech or censorship is detrimental in either direction. Worries about censorship going too far ARE justified, but there ARE situations where it is necessary, and more exacting and precise public discussions about and decisions on what is fair game for censorship and what isn’t is the solution, not the understandably visceral reaction to censorship in general.
If there are concerns about the speech that is being used on a network, then the government should find the person talking and ask them to stop. They should not be able to take away everyone’s voice because a select few are abusing it
…which is a dangerous violation of the freedom of privacy and has resulted in the imprisonment of government critics in many countries like Saudi Arabia, where X has happily given user identifying information on request.
Also, nobody’s voice is taken away. The government isn’t making people stop talking. The originally requested deplatformed users were more than welcome to go to another platform. And the shutting down of X in general? They’ve shut down a platform that was blatantly and flagrantly violating the law. There are hundreds of others platforms to choose from. Heck, you can still go outside, go to the park, and yell. Always could. Do not conflate freedom of speech with the entitlement to a particular audience.
Why don’t they shut down those hundreds of other platforms?
If they flout the law of those countries, they will. And they should.
Social media companies do not get to be above government because they are social media companies. The government’s actions are the actions taken by the representatives chosen by the people in free and fair elections. THAT is where the people’s voice matters. Not on an opaque social media platform. If a car company decides they think a government safety restriction is wrong, they don’t get to NOT implement it. If they do, they get shut down. Social media companies are NO different.
No company with no accountability to anyone but its shareholders should EVER be above a government of the people. Do you want a dystopia? Because that’s how you get a dystopia.
So if it’s not a company it’s fine? So, Lemmy is good right? Or if Lemmy starts (haha) being used to distribute propaganda a government decides is against them, you are totally onboard with shutting it down?
This is the danger. Propaganda is not the issue. Illegal speech is. Speech that incites violence, reveals classified information, or endangers innocent people.
Lemmy is not a company, but if, for example, Lemmy starts posting the names, addresses, and home security details of Brazilian officials, you can rest assured they would block those instances as well.
X being a single corporate entity gives it different responsibilities because it operates as a business, but either way, the platform flouting the law will and should be blocked. Free speech is not a free-for-all and has limitations.
Speech that could overthrow a totalitarian regime could fall under that definition, yet I wouldn’t consider it a bad thing.
You are correct.
Brazil is not a totalitarian regime. The resistance to deplatforming in this case isn’t the same as, say, resisting deplatforming democracy activists in Taiwan, which X would likely not do.
The context matters. Brazil is a democratic nation with checks and balances that has defined what it considers illegal speech. X is of course, entitled to disagree with that assessment. And Brazil is free to correctly assess that X is not following its laws and ban it from operating there. That’s all there is to it. If the Brazilian people think the government’s definition of illegal speech is wrong, this government will be booted out in the next election. It’s that simple.