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.”

  • ayyy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes but it’s a law that is used for internet censorship.

      • ayyy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, that’s what is happening here.

        • madjo@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not really, as X refused to argue it in court, the place where this argument should have taken place.

          Whatever we Lemmings think about this ruling is unimportant to the actual rulers. We can argue about that till we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change a thing. So it’s pointless.

          X had a chance to assount legal representation. They refused, and as a consequence, the entire website got blocked. It’s their own fault.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can’t open a restaurant that doesn’t comply with food safety law. This is a “skill issue” on Musk’s part. Not censorship.

      • ayyy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nobody here ever said otherwise.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Is shutting down a restaurant because it doesn’t comply with food safety restaurant censorship?

          • ayyy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            No? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make to me by naming dumb stuff that isn’t censorship.