World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
He's arguing that it's illegal because they are separate entities.
If Starlink refuses to comply or hinders others to comply, they are in contempt to the Supreme Court orders.
As long as this order is within the law, it shouldn't matter if Starlink and X are connected or not.
And even if they are in orbit "above" the law, the ruling is only about their operating in brazil not about the satellite itself. And their operations within the country of Brazil do have to comply with Brazilian law and courts.
The issue of freezing star link accounts predates this shut down and was the result of some issue with x.
I've got no love for musk, but if the government is going after starlink because they have issues with x, it's hard for me to disagree with him when he calls this dictator like. And thus it's hard for me to fault him for using it as leverage.
If it's about paying fines then that's standard procedure. You can't limited liability yourself out of fines: If the subsidiary doesn't pay they fall onto the owner, said owner is Musk, said Musk has assets in Brazil in the form of Starlink accounts, hence, you impound them. If he had parked his Yacht there they would've gone for that.
This reminds me of an old, really old case: Some nobleman owed a Hanseatic trader money over a grain shipment. Refused to pay. Had the gall to show up in Hamburg. Trader had him arrested, noble threw a fit, appealed to the Emperor. Emperor said: "Dude that's Hamburg, they DGAF if you're a noble short of forbidding you to take up residence in the city, pay up". Ended up selling most of his land to get out of debt and therefore prison, and an important lesson about assumed privilege was learned.
You can limit liability by creating separate entities and this is absolutely the standard, at least in the US. You would have to be very ignorant, or have sought no outside counsel, if you have some kind of decently profitable business and haven't done so. It's the whole point of these legal structures, such as LLCs. I don't know the particulars of the case, nor the particulars of Brazilian law, so I don't really know if it the case here.
That being said, speaking from an only slightly informed US perspective, if they are suing Musk himself, then yes they can absolutely go after his assets, which would include ownership in Starlink and X. However, if they fined X, it wouldn't even remotely be a stretch that they do not have the legal authority to lock down Starlink accounts, as they are two separate entities that are presumably linked only by common figurehead.
State fines against a company aren't a civil matter. Brazil isn't suing anyone, they're enforcing compliance with law by means of fines and the laws governing that would be written shoddily indeed if you could avoid fines by incanting "limited liability" like some sovereign citizen. "I'm not breaking laws, I'm doing limited liability business".
Nor did I say anyone was suing anyone. I was just drawing up an example of a case how they could go after both entities. In this case, it appears the fine was levied against X, and not Musk.
And no one is talking about "avoiding fines." WTF are you even on about? We are talking about them seizing Starlink assets because of fines levied against X. Musk doesn't even own a majority share of SpaceX (who owns starlink). You are confusing "the face of" with "the legal entity."
You are. Who is going to pay the fine against X? If Starlink doesn't like it they're free to sue Musk for the money back. They can cancel a couple of his shares to cover it. I don't care. Brazil doesn't care. The fine has been issued, and it's going to be paid.
Blatantly lying about what I've said just indicates to me that you have no interest in getting to the truth, so I won't bother any further.
The order to block Twitter went to all Brazilian ISPs, and Starlink is the only one that didn't comply on Saturday. ~~So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey, but the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in, and why the Brazilian courts seem to be willing to aggressively enforce their own orders.~~
Edit: I'm convinced. This comment as originally written presented the facts out of order.
You've got it backwards. Right in the article, it notes "The decision to freeze Starlink's accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents." The escalation of Starlink not complying comes from that, not the other way around.
Again, seemingly backwards. It was the government of Brazil that used their "intertwined nature" to freeze Starlink accounts, and Musk has, in turned, used that "intertwine nature" as leverage.
To be clear, I hate defending Musk, but I don't see why it makes sense to freeze Startlink accounts if it's X that hasn't paid the fines. Can they go after any company that he owns stock in? Can they start seizing Teslas? How about MS infrastructure, if he holds some ownership in that company too? I'm just not sure the government of Brazil is on the right side of this, and not simply using their power to punish Musk. If people said "I don't really care and I'm glad they are holding his feet to the fire" that would be one thing, but people are arguing that it's actually Musk who is doing all of this, while it appears that it's actually the Brazilian government that "intertwined" them and Musk just responding in kind.
I've looked closer (at other articles, too). You're right - the freezing of the SpaceX accounts came from the same order that ordered that Twitter be blocked, and before SpaceX announced it would refuse to comply.
The proper thing to do is to recognize the legally distinct personhood of SpaceX, which isn't part of Twitter, even if Twitter/X itself is wrong on the law.
We need more people like you.
I wonder if he would have complied with the court order if the Brazil government hadn’t done this, if so then yeah, I guess that’s not shitty.
My gut says he would have started drama regardless.
It certainly wouldn't be surprising.