[HN Gopher] Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
        
       Author : edpichler
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2024-08-29 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.msn.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.msn.com)
        
       | ImJamal wrote:
       | Am I understanding this correctly? The judge didn't like what X
       | did (or didn't do) so he is making moves against StarLink, which
       | would allow users to potentially bypass the censorship this judge
       | is pushing for.
        
         | barryrandall wrote:
         | As I understand it, X was fined, didn't pay, and the judge
         | pierced a few corporate veils to discover that Starlink and X
         | share a majority owner.
        
           | prepend wrote:
           | He had to pierce veils to figure that out? Couldn't he just
           | check Wikipedia like everyone else?
           | 
           | Is this legal in the US?
           | 
           | If company A owns B and C; and C does something bad, can A or
           | B be fined?
        
             | hwc wrote:
             | that's the idea of "limited liability". it has a lot of
             | downsides in practice.
        
             | rlpb wrote:
             | "Piercing the corporate veil" isn't about discovering
             | something that is a secret. It's a legal principle.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
             | 
             | > Is this legal in the US?
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#U
             | n...
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _Starlink and X share a majority owner_
           | 
           | Musk doesn't own a majority of Starlink or SpaceX. (SpaceX
           | owns Starlink. SpaceX is controlled by Musk. But he owns less
           | than 50% of the shares.)
        
             | notfish wrote:
             | Musk owns 79% of voting shares of spacex (but yes, only 42%
             | of equity). I guess it depends on your definition of
             | "owns", but its not unreasonable to say he owns spacex.
        
         | xinayder wrote:
         | It's not a question whether the judge disliked what X did or
         | not. They were subpoenaed to block the accounts engaged in
         | anti-democratic speech. Failing to do so, X would have to pay a
         | 2k USD daily fine until they cooperated.
         | 
         | X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD
         | daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the
         | company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt
         | they owe to the state.
         | 
         | Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X
         | (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking
         | their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian
         | state.
        
       | pfannkuchen wrote:
       | Isn't Brazil like notoriously light on rule of law? I don't feel
       | surprised or outraged by this, more like-- what did you expect?
        
         | protastus wrote:
         | Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and
         | publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?
        
       | blackhawkC17 wrote:
       | Blocking Starlink (SpaceX) accounts to pay for X fines, despite
       | them being two separate companies?
       | 
       | I forgot it's Brazil, a very corrupt country where the rule of
       | law is an afterthought. They'll keep wondering why many investors
       | shun Brazil and Latin America at large, making the region much
       | poorer than their counterparts.
        
         | mikedelfino wrote:
         | > the rule of law is an afterthought
         | 
         | Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian
         | law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the
         | law?
        
           | dalmo3 wrote:
           | Rule of law doesn't mean written law. A written law can be
           | against the rule of law. Conversely, something might not be
           | against the law but violate the rule of law.
           | 
           | > "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm
           | that supports the equality of all citizens before the law,
           | secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally
           | prevents the arbitrary use of power."
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
        
             | mikedelfino wrote:
             | Doesn't that quote support the judge's position, though? X
             | is being treated just like all other citizens. The page you
             | linked also states "no one is above the law," so I'm
             | sincerely not sure who we're talking about here.
        
           | anon291 wrote:
           | Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain
           | active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is
           | a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
        
             | mikedelfino wrote:
             | Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to
             | be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the
             | request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm
             | not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some
             | countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of
             | what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's
             | order first and then challenge it in court until it can be
             | published again.
        
               | xinayder wrote:
               | Anti-democratic speech like asking for a military
               | intervention is a federal crime in Brazil.
        
             | xinayder wrote:
             | Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have
             | been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the
             | congress, federal intervention and overturning a
             | democratically elected president and questioning the
             | electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts,
             | which are a criminal offense.
             | 
             | So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his
             | place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is
             | actually following the law in the country is a human rights
             | violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating
             | group of countries in the world.
        
               | anon291 wrote:
               | The EU does routinely violate human rights as there is no
               | free speech anywhere in the EU. People are regularly
               | jailed in Europe for blasphemy, upsetting people, 'hate'
               | speech, etc. The EU has never been a solid proponent of
               | human rights. There's a reason the American revolution
               | happened (And is arguably more needed than ever)
               | 
               | > storming the congress, federal intervention and
               | overturning a democratically elected president and
               | questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-
               | democratic acts, which are a criminal offense.
               | 
               | Democracy is not synonymous with human rights.
        
       | mistrial9 wrote:
       | Starlink is widely used in deforestation and mining in Brazil.
       | Elon Musk personally flew to Brazil to promote it (with
       | Balsenero?), despite the predictions that Starlink would be used
       | that way. The political pitch was that schools in the far reaches
       | would use it - that has measurably failed to materialize.
       | Meanwhile, Federal raids on gold mining operations show Starlink
       | transceivers routinely.
       | 
       | source: Brazilian activist report
        
         | blackhawkC17 wrote:
         | The issue is not Starlink. It's that the Brazilian government
         | is too inept and corrupt to tackle illegal mining in its
         | backyard. Many countries have huge landmasses (US, Canada,
         | China, etc.), yet no one gets away with something as brash as
         | illegal mining.
        
         | prepend wrote:
         | Chainsaws are used as well. And fossil fuels. And electricity.
         | 
         | I'm sure if the Feds raid gold mining they'll find some copper
         | wires and other infrastructure.
        
           | dyauspitr wrote:
           | Ah the why ban guns since knives can kill people too
           | argument.
        
         | alden5 wrote:
         | that's not a source, could you link the report?
        
           | Qem wrote:
           | https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/05/15/find-out-how-
           | ille...
        
             | xinayder wrote:
             | and if someone questions this is a leftist website:
             | https://fortune.com/2023/03/15/elon-musk-starlink-brazil-
             | ama...
        
         | tacker2000 wrote:
         | Bolsonaro
        
       | anon291 wrote:
       | Brazil under its new administration is quickly becoming
       | everything claimed the previous administration was going to be.
        
       | stuaxo wrote:
       | What are the lumps on his face in that picture?
        
       | ChrisArchitect wrote:
       | [dupe]
       | 
       | Some more discussion:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-08-29 23:01 UTC)