Musk's Starlink Backtracks and Says it Will Comply With Judge's Order to Block X in Brazil

Photo illustration of the logo of the social media platform X (former Twitter) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on August 30, 2024. (Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL / AFP)
Photo illustration of the logo of the social media platform X (former Twitter) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on August 30, 2024. (Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL / AFP)
TT

Musk's Starlink Backtracks and Says it Will Comply With Judge's Order to Block X in Brazil

Photo illustration of the logo of the social media platform X (former Twitter) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on August 30, 2024. (Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL / AFP)
Photo illustration of the logo of the social media platform X (former Twitter) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on August 30, 2024. (Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL / AFP)

Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet service provider Starlink backtracked Tuesday and said it will comply with a Brazilian Supreme Court justice's order to block the billionaire’s social media platform, X.
Starlink said in a statement posted on X that it will heed Justice Alexandre de Moraes' order despite him having frozen the company's assets. Previously, it informally told the telecommunications regulator that it would not comply until de Moraes reversed course.
“Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil," the company statement said. "We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre's recent order violate the Brazilian constitution.”
De Moraes froze Starlink's accounts last week as a means to compel it to cover X’s fines that already exceeded $3 million, reasoning that the two companies are part of the same economic group. Starlink filed an appeal, its law firm Veirano told the Associated Press on Aug. 30, but has declined to comment further in the days since.
Days later, the justice ordered the suspension of X for refusing to name a local legal representative, as required in order to receive notifications of court decisions and swiftly take any requisite action — particularly, in X's case, the takedown of accounts. A Supreme Court panel unanimously upheld the block on Monday, undermining efforts by Musk and his supporters to cast the justice as an authoritarian renegade intent on censoring political speech in Brazil.
Had Starlink continued to disobey de Moraes by providing access, telecommunications regulator Anatel could eventually have seized equipment from Starlink’s 23 ground stations that ensure the quality of its internet service, Arthur Coimbra, an Anatel board member, said on a video call from his office in Brasilia.
Already some legal experts questioned de Moraes’ basis for freezing Starlink’s accounts, given that its parent company SpaceX has no integration with X. Musk noted on X that the two companies have different shareholder structures.
X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to block users — mostly far-right activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy and allies of former President Jair Bolsonaro — and has alleged that de Moraes wants an in-country legal representative so that Brazilian authorities can exert leverage over the company by having someone to arrest. And Musk has been relentlessly posting in recent days, lambasting de Moraes as a criminal.
“This evil tyrant is a disgrace to judges' robes,” Musk wrote on X along with a photo of de Moraes some 17 hours before Starlink announced its decision to comply with the order.
He hasn't posted about the company's operations in Brazil since its announcement.
The reversal comes as a relief to those in Brazil who have come to depend on Starlink. The company has said it has more than 250,000 customers in the country, many of whom are in remote areas that wouldn’t have fast internet access otherwise.
Before Starlink, internet access in many of these areas came from slow, unstable fixed antennae. Its easy-to-install kits and high-quality connections have transformed communication in some communities, surpassing even major Amazonian cities in speed.
The Forest People Connection project, founded in 2022 with Musk-donated Starlink terminals, has so far brought them to 1,014 remote communities, including riverine and Indigenous peoples. The Yanomami are among them. Living in a far-flung corner of Brazil's rainforest, they had faced a severe health crisis, but now have access to Starlink-powered telemedicine consults and reliable communication for emergency transport of patients.
Improved connectivity has also facilitated illegal activities, such as gold mining.
While Brazil's massive territory with vast rural and forested areas makes it a key growth market for Starlink, its presence isn’t yet as large as Musk has led some to believe. On Sunday, he shared someone else’s post that showed him meeting Bolsonaro in 2022 and noted that the duo claimed to have struck a partnership to bring Starlink to 19,000 schools. Musk touted the deal on X at the time.
It never happened. As of March 2023, SpaceX and the communications ministry hadn’t signed any contract, and only three terminals had been installed in Amazon schools for a 12-month trial period. The ministry’s press office didn't immediately answer an AP request for updated information about these contracts on Tuesday. Brazil’s education ministry told the AP that states are responsible for signing contracts with internet service providers.
Since January 2022, when Starlink began operations in Brazil, it has captured a 0.5 percent share of the internet market, trailing significantly behind leading providers, according to Anatel.
Although Starlink has retreated and says it will now block X, Musk's bravado in recent days has boosted his hero status in the eyes of his fans, said Marietje Schaake, the international policy director at Stanford University Cyber Policy Center.
“The battle of the titans, between de Moraes and Musk, reminds us of how powerful, political and provocative tech leaders have become," said Schaake, who is also author of the forthcoming book “The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley”.
"Brazil won’t be that last country to seek accountability or to put up guardrails.”



Social Media Companies Slam Australia's Under-16 ban

Social media companies slam Australia's under-16 ban - AFP
Social media companies slam Australia's under-16 ban - AFP
TT

Social Media Companies Slam Australia's Under-16 ban

Social media companies slam Australia's under-16 ban - AFP
Social media companies slam Australia's under-16 ban - AFP

Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with "many unanswered questions".

The UN children's charity UNICEF Australia warned the law was no "silver bullet" against online harm and could push kids into "covert and unregulated" spaces online.

The legislation, approved by parliament on Thursday, orders social media firms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent young teens from having accounts, AFP reported. It is due to come into effect after a year.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the age limit may not be implemented perfectly -- much like existing restrictions on alcohol -- but it was "the right thing to do".

The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X would lead to "better outcomes and less harm for young Australians", he told reporters.

Platforms have a "social responsibility" to make children's safety a priority, Albanese said.

Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million (US$32.5 million) for "systemic breaches".

TikTok said it was "disappointed" in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.

"It's entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist," a TikTok spokesperson said.

Tech companies said that despite the law's perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government in shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.

The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced -- prompting concern among experts that it will be largely symbolic.

Members of the public appeared doubtful.

"I don't think it will actually change a lot because I don't see that there's really a strong way to police it," 41-year-old Emily Beall told AFP in Melbourne.

Arthur McCormack, 19, said some things he had seen on social media when he was younger were "sort of traumatic".

"I think it's good that the government is on this ban. But in terms of enforcement, I'm not sure how it will be carried out," he said.

Meta -- owner of Facebook and Instagram -- called for consultation on the rules to ensure a "technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens".

- 'Serious concerns' -

But Meta said it was concerned "about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people".

A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised "serious concerns" about the law and that "many unanswered questions" remained about how it would work.

But the company said it would engage closely with the government to develop an approach balancing "privacy, safety and practicality".

UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also included in the digital world.

"This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing," she said.

Leo Puglisi, a 17-year-old online journalist based in Melbourne, was critical of the legislation.

He founded streaming channel 6 News, which provides hourly news bulletins on national and international issues, in 2019 at the age of 11.

- Global attention -

"We've been built up by having 13 to 15-year-olds see 6 News online and then join the team," Puglisi said in a statement.

"We have said that this ban seriously risks restricting creativity from our young people, no matter what passion or future career they want to explore," he added.

One of the biggest issues will be privacy -- what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.

Social media companies remain adamant that age verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.

Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.

The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.

Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.

China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.