Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter Social Networks

Brazil Unblocks X (npr.org) 87

Posted by BeauHD from the well-well-well dept.
X has been restored in Brazil after being shut down nationwide for over a month. According to court documents released today, X ultimately complied with all of Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes' demands. "They included blocking certain accounts from the platform, paying outstanding fines and naming a legal representative in the country," reports NPR. "Failure to do the latter had triggered the suspension." From the report: Elon Musk's X was blocked blocked on Aug. 30 in the highly online country of 213 million people -- and one of X's biggest markets, with estimates of its user base ranging from 20 to 40 million. De Moraes ordered the shutdown after a monthslong dispute with Musk over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation. Musk had disparaged de Moraes, calling him an authoritarian and a censor, even though his rulings, including X's suspension, were repeatedly upheld by his peers.

Brazilian law requires foreign companies to have a local legal representative to receive notifications of court decisions and swiftly take any requisite action -- particularly, in X's case, the takedown of accounts. Conceicao was first named X's legal representative in April and resigned four months later. The company named her to the same job on Sep. 20, according to the public filing with the Sao Paulo commercial registry. In an apparent effort to shield Conceicao from potential violations by X -- and risking arrest -- a clause has been written into Conceicao's new representation agreement that she must follow Brazilian law and court decisions, and that any legal responsibility she assumes on X's behalf requires prior instruction from the company in writing, according to the company's filing.

There is nothing illegal or suspect about using a company like BR4Business for legal representation, but it shows that X is doing the bare minimum to operate in the country, said Fabio de Sa e Silva, a lawyer and associate professor of International and Brazilian Studies at the University of Oklahoma. "It doesn't demonstrate an intention to truly engage with the country. Take Meta, for example, and Google. They have an office, a government relations department, precisely to interact with public authorities and discuss Brazil's regulatory policies concerning their businesses," Silva added. [...] "The concern now is what comes next and how X, once back in operation, will manage to meet the demands of the market and local authorities without creating new tensions," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brazil Unblocks X More

Brazil Unblocks X

Comments Filter:
  • Brazil has free speech laws very similar to the US and these judges were asking X to ban accounts civilians including sitting members of congress and prohibited X from informing the users why they were being banned. Not only that they had only closed their Brazil office and removed their Brazilian representative because the representatives had been threatened with jail time over not banning a sitting member of congress, but they had stopped doing business altogether in Brazil, as it Xno longer received any

    • Re:Brazil has Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)

      by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @06:14PM (#64849913)

      Free speech does not mean free from consequences. The people you referenced were calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Brazil as well as his assassination. They were from the authoritarian former president, Bolsonaro. Leon didn't, and doesn't, believe in the rule of law where court orders need to be followed. He tried, and lost [cnn.com], the same argument in the U.S. when he was prohibited from warning the convicted felon the DOJ was requesting all the posts about trying to overthrow the election.

      The reasons the company was reinstated and allowed to operate were they provided an in-country representative, they blocked the requested accounts, and paid the fine after initially sending it to the wrong bank [slashdot.org] (deliberately, no doubt).

      But wait, there's more. We have to remember when he rolled over for Turkey when ordered to block accounts of opposition candidates in the days before the election, and even made a wild ass excuse [imgur.com] that it was either comply with the directive or be booted from the entire country. In fact, in response to rolling over, Twitter's own Global Government Affairs account stated:

      In response to legal process and to ensure Twitter remains available to the people of Turkey, we have taken action to restrict access to some content in Turkey today.

      Huh, in response to legal process. Funny how he had no problem acquiescing to that legal process when it came from an authoritarian, but whined and pissed and threw a hissy fit when it came from a democratic court.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 )

        Free speech does not mean free from consequences.

        I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that. However, what I do know is that when people say that, they are generally anti-free speech authoritarians who are too chicken shit to actually say so. Stop all the tap dancing and tell us you really just hate free speech and want any angle to attack it and get you some of those sweet sweet EU hate speech laws.

        • Generally I'm of the same observation. "But not freedom from consequences" typically translates to "I'm fine with/I like these particular consequences".

        • Remind me - when were the censors ever the good guys?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by higuita ( 129722 )

            well, some years ago i read about a guy that worked in facebook censor team and he worked there for several years... the pay was good and as time went by, he slowly was promoted...
            in the begging he was reviewing the posts automatically flagged as nudes, drugs, but with time and good job, he started to get more hardcore flags, porn, assassinations proofs and in the last few years he was filtering the most horrible things, like ISIS and drug cartel cruel assassinations, child porn, hired beatings and amputati

      • 'Democratic Court'. Adorable.

      • Free speech does not mean free from consequences.

        I think it means freedom from legal consequences, yes. (Except in cases of libel and slander, or lies that injure someone.)

        Leon

        His name is spelled Elon, by the way.

    • Brazil ... judges were asking X to ban accounts civilians including sitting members of congress

      Ours or theirs? 'Cause, as an American, I can understand at least one of those.
      Maybe not approve of, but certainly understand. :-)

    • Re:Brazil has Free Speech (Score:4, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @06:31PM (#64849947)

      Brazil has free speech laws very similar to the US

      I'm so sick of people talking about Freedom of Speech in absolute terms. Yes Brazil has free speech. No it is not absolute, there are most definitely restrictions on speech. In fact in Brazil the restrictions on speech are voluminous enough to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] including some obvious ones that exist in many countries such as the manufacture and sale or distribution of swastikas to the downright bizarre:"It is a crime, punishable by imprisonment of one (1) to four (4) years and a fine, the following discriminatory behavior against HIV positive and AIDS patients, because of their carrier status or ill:"

      • Most countries have such a page. The USA does too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        You missed the key bit with your quote! “V - to disclose HIV-positive status, in order to offend his dignity;”

        It’s reasonable to debate whether deliberately disclosing someone’s HIV status should be a crime, but it doesn’t feel “bizarre” that a state should have decided that it is. Most states have criminalised the deliberate leaking of medical information under data privacy laws, and many have additional laws imposing additional safeguards in relation to especially

        • The bizarre bit about this is that it's not generalised but rather very specific to HIV.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shilly ( 142940 )

            I think that's because at one point, Brazil had a huge HIV prevalence and a rash of deliberate leanings. I tried to look for examples of these stories quickly, but can't find them. I think it may go back a decade or more.

  • Now he's really going to be insufferable.

  • Jusrt like 80 years ago... (Score:3)

    by newslash.formatblows ( 2011678 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @06:27PM (#64849939)
    ...Brazil gets an influx of Nazis.
  • Now that the *cough* fines *cough* are paid, everyone gets back to work.

  • Who wrote this story? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @08:25PM (#64850083) Journal

    Was it written by Alexandre de Moraes's publicity department? It glosses over the fact that the reason Musk didn't name a legal representative after the one he had resigned is that she resigned because de Moraes threatened to arrest his employees in Brazil. This may also be why Musk doesn't "demonstrate an intention to truly engage with the country"... if they're going to arrest your people to get leverage on you, best to keep the country at arms length.

    The demands de Moraes made were not all made public by him; some were leaked in by members of the US Congress, and they included Twitter blocking things that Brazil wanted blocked not just in Brazil but worldwide. There's nothing about Musk complying with that one here. In fact, it isn't acknowledged at all.

    • Re:Who wrote this story? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by higuita ( 129722 ) on Tuesday October 08, 2024 @11:00PM (#64850291) Homepage

      if you work in a country, you have to follow it's laws... you can't sell drugs in the USA, right? You can't post naked women in Saudi Arabia, right? you can't promote violence against people you don't like in Brazil, it is their law.
      Also, by law, Brazil requires a legal representative in the country to all companies that work there. The objective is exactly this one, to force the company to obey their laws and not shield themself in other countries. If the company fails to obey the law, the representative will be the target and jailed and the company blocked from working in Brazil. Nothing here was outside the Brazilian law, Elon was the one that tried to avoid the local law. (and again, a few month earlier, he did obey the Turkish law by blocking opposition accounts before the elections, so he is not even consistent in his actions)

      • if you work in a country, you have to follow it's laws

        No, you see Elon Musk doesn't have to follow other countries laws because "free speech" or he doesn't like them or didn't vote for them or whatever dumbass excuse these fan boys come up with.

        • No, you see Elon Musk doesn't have to follow other countries laws because "free speech" or he doesn't like them or didn't vote for them or whatever dumbass excuse these fan boys come up with.

          We all seem to forget that the laws for billionares, and the laws for us mere mortals are not the same. Sure you can charge a billionare or suit him, but said billionare can tie that shit up in appeals and motions forever.

          Well, unless said billionare does something to bigger billionares, in which case he probably wont b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by higuita ( 129722 )

          yes he have, he ended to do it... He blocked the accounts, he (re)hired the local representative, he paid the fines and after all this, he requested X to be unblocked.
          In the end, money talked louder; Brazil have million of users, X alternatives had a huge grow and could create a viable X alternative. See, he had to obey, even if he didn't like it... when you make something illegal, you may have unwanted outcomes!

    • because de Moraes threatened to arrest his employees in Brazil.

      You break the law, you get arrested. Why is this so hard for you to figure out?

  • X complied with all of the demands, and should have been back online sometime last week, but there was a claim a fine was paid to a wrong account, so they didn't get back online until AFTER Sunday's elections.

  • secrecy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @05:22AM (#64850593) Journal

    I haven't followed this closely, is the government requiring secrecy in these account-blocking moves?

    It feels fairly totalitarian, but if they want to operate in the country, maybe the only way to fight back is to publicize every every takedown and Streisand each account?

    • There may be some secrecy in the decisions if there's still an ongoing investigation. But generally speaking the decisions are public, or made public after some time.

      Also, it's worth mentioning, X's own recent transparency report shows that Brazil is far behind other countries when it comes to order takedowns. The Musk vs. Moraes case was all about a handful of far-right accounts from people being sued for repeatedly publishing fake stories. Some of these people are even convicted fugitives from the Brazili

      • Thanks for explaining.

        It feels like the whole conflict was basically dumb for X. Probably Musk's ego, to a major degree with maybe a tiny bit of principle. Then again, if he was so committed to the absolute principle of Freedom of Speech, I'd expect him to spend more effort on Assange and Snowden. I'm not a drooling Elon-hater, but that seems someplace he's inconsistent.

        Ultimately, $5 million is basically crumbs to him. He could pay it personally with less than 1 day's income.

        From a practical standpoint

  • There is nothing illegal or suspect about using a company like BR4Business for legal representation, but it shows that X is doing the bare minimum to operate in the country, said Fabio de Sa e Silva, a lawyer and associate professor of International and Brazilian Studies at the University of Oklahoma. "It doesn't demonstrate an intention to truly engage with the country. Take Meta, for example, and Google. They have an office, a government relations department, precisely to interact with public authorities and discuss Brazil's regulatory policies concerning their businesses," Silva added. [...] "The concern now is what comes next and how X, once back in operation, will manage to meet the demands of the market and local authorities without creating new tensions," he said.

    "Oh, don't think that just complying with law (or judicial edicts) will be enough, comrade ... "

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Close