That's a different subject.

The fact that someone does a bad thing doesn't justify a government becoming arbitrarily tyrannical against them and everyone associated with them (in a way that has nothing to do with the bad thing the guy did to begin with).

And the bad thing is not even in the same category as what the government is doing, since Musk censoring Twitter is non-coercitive, while Brazil censoring Twitter is coercitive.

Equating both is analogous to equating an insult to a punch.

Then you have to put majority of Europe in bed with Erdogan - people connected with attempted coup were removed from universities in Sweden and Germany - and other countries.

For one, equating these different situations is ridiculous and shows you have almost no knowledge of each country, its politics, or its laws. Modi is not an autocrat, by a long shot. Erdogan, sure I can believe that at times, for example the purge after the failed coup. But each country’s cases are VERY different. In both Turkey and India, however, Twitter followed court orders because they were obviously legal per their local laws. In India’s case, the orders were public, transparent, and easy to challenge. In Brazil’s case, the orders are secret, not transparent to either the victim or platform, and impossible to challenge since Alexandre de Moraes is threatening to jail Twitter/X’s legal representative. The main problem is that such orders are unconstitutional in Brazil. No laws were passed to give the judiciary this power. None. It is illegal and authoritarian. Twitter is right to refuse these orders, per local laws.

The brazilian court can fine X, block X, caese it's Brazilian assets, ask ISPs to block it, block it from app stores, atleast all this they can do with some judicial basis.

Fining random VPN user is just going far above and beyond that.