The Brazil-Musk showdown starlink became the latest battleground
The suspension of X was quickly applied, denying access to the platform to the vast majority of Brazilian users.
The relationship between Elon Musk and Brazil has recently become separated particularly over the activities of Starlink, Musk’s satellite broadband company, and his social media platform, X (previously Twitter). The controversy arose when Brazil’s Supreme Court maintained a statewide ban on X, citing worries that the platform was being used to promote hate speech and falsehoods about the country’s electronic voting system. This resulted in X being removed from most Brazilian users’ access, however others continued to use it using VPN.
Starlink, which is also controlled by Musk, has become a new battleground. Anatel, Brazil’s telecommunications regulator, threatened to cancel Starlink’s license after the company refused to comply with a court order blocking access to X. This refusal is linked to a larger legal dispute in which Musk opposed the suspension of Starlink’s assets in Brazil—a move designed to impose fines for X’s noncompliance with Brazilian law.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva praised the court’s decision, noting that Musk’s wealth did not excuse him from obeying the law. The current conflict exposes the bigger challenges of regulatory compliance and the global reach of Musk’s firms.
The controversy began when Brazil’s Supreme Court decided to prohibit Musk’s social media platform, X, across the country. The court’s decision was based on worries that X was being used to spread misinformation and hate speech about Brazil’s electronic voting system, which might undermine the country’s democratic procedures. This verdict, led by Judge Alexandre de Moraes, was supported by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who stated that Musk’s money and influence should not protect him from the law.
However, some users overcame the restriction by using VPNs, prompting the court to warn daily fines for anyone who continued to use the site. The decision underscored the Brazilian judiciary’s dedication to protecting democracy from what it considers hazardous and damaging information.
