The American newspaper The Washington Post reported on the order to suspend X, issued by Alexandre de Moraes late Friday afternoon, stating that the dispute between the Supreme Court Justice and billionaire Elon Musk has made Brazil “a key location in the debate between freedom of expression and disinformation.” Updated on Saturday morning, the report stated that the social network was already inaccessible to many users, and that authorities expected the block to be complete today. The text also mentioned the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in France, carried out on Monday.
THE Post mentioned the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts to pay X’s fines, and stated that Musk had committed to keeping the satellite internet service running even if he was unable to receive payments from users. The report also briefly summarizes the dispute between Moraes – described as “one of the most aggressive opponents of disinformation in the world” – and Musk, and states that the owner of X refused to comply with court orders for censorship and the appointment of a legal representative, claiming that, in the latter case, he would be exposing his chosen one to the possibility of being arrested.
Analysis article highlights risks to freedom of expression
In an opinion piece titled “Musk and Durov Are Facing Regulatory Revenge,” commentator Will Oremus says that the arrest of Telegram’s founder and the suspension of X, while quite different in detail, are indications that “the era in which tech titans have free rein to shape the online world — and a presumption of immunity from real-world consequences” is coming to an end, he says. “Banning an entire social network or arresting an executive was not the sort of thing liberal democracies did. Now, for better or worse, it is.”
Oremus says it is simplistic to summarize the issue by looking for good guys and bad guys, but points out that Moraes has approached social networks in an “aggressive” manner and that “the requirement to designate a legal representative that the government can hold accountable” is “a requirement historically associated with authoritarian governments trying to intimidate companies.” Quoted in the column, Daphne Keller, a former Google lawyer and now director of the Platform Regulation Program at Stanford University, says that “it appears that we have a Supreme Court justice in Brazil who is going too far.”
The columnist concludes by stating that “the real concern is not that internet bosses will finally start to suffer the consequences of violating national laws. It is that these countries’ zeal to contain what they see as ‘tech renegades’ will lead to laws and regulations that crush legitimate forms of online expression.”
#Washington #Post #Brazil #key #country #debate #freedom #expression