Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts (opens in new tab)

(msn.com)

40 pointsshark11y ago49 comments

49 comments

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?

protastus1y ago

Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?

belval1y ago

Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?

1 more reply

gamblor9561y ago

Legally this is known as "piercing the veil" and if generally reserved for situations like this where someone is attempting to use a corporation to evade responsibility for law breaking.

ImJamal1y ago

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.

xinayder1y ago

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.

mlindner1y ago

They were subpoenaed because of the judge's personal dislike for those accounts. It had nothing to do with the law.

barryrandall1y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> 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.)

1 more reply

prepend1y ago

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?

2 more replies

ChrisArchitect1y ago

[dupe]

Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962

mlindner1y ago

That post is flagged though.

stuaxo1y ago

What are the lumps on his face in that picture?

mistrial91y ago

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

blackhawkC171y ago

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.

prepend1y ago

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.

dyauspitr1y ago

Ah the why ban guns since knives can kill people too argument.

1 more reply

alden51y ago

that's not a source, could you link the report?

Qem1y ago

https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/05/15/find-out-how-ille...

1 more reply

tacker20001y ago

Bolsonaro

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

49 comments

pfannkuchen1y ago

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?

protastus1y ago

Alternative take: what would you expect by consistently and publicly antagonizing a supreme court justice?

belval1y ago

Pursuing legal action against the person (Elon) and not an unrelated business he owns (Starlink)? Wasn't the entire thing caused by a disagreement over X anyway?

1 more reply

gamblor9561y ago

Legally this is known as "piercing the veil" and if generally reserved for situations like this where someone is attempting to use a corporation to evade responsibility for law breaking.

ImJamal1y ago

xinayder1y ago

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.

mlindner1y ago

They were subpoenaed because of the judge's personal dislike for those accounts. It had nothing to do with the law.

barryrandall1y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> 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.)

1 more reply

prepend1y ago

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?