Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

    • peopleproblems
      link
      English
      -14 months ago

      What part of the joke aren’t you getting???

    • peopleproblems
      link
      English
      -16
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No I mean it’s literally a satellite network. It’s in orbit.

      It’s above the law. Literally.

      Edit: a lot of people whooshing this. How? It’s so fucking simple.

      Orbit = Space. Brazil = Earth.

      Space altitude > Brazil Altitude.

      Orbit is literally above guys. Like come the fuck on. It’s a funny joke.

        • peopleproblems
          link
          English
          -24 months ago

          Yes. There is. Orbit is a higher altitude than Brazil. Don’t play dumb.

          • AwesomeLowlander
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -24 months ago

            We get the joke. You were being downvoted for your egregious misuse of the word ‘literal’

            • peopleproblems
              link
              English
              -1
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              It’s not misuse. Come on. You can’t fucking honestly convince me that satellites orbit lower than Brazil.

              Literal: Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

              Above: On high; overhead.

              • AwesomeLowlander
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                Satellites orbit above Brazil, I agree with you. Your statement however was that satellites are above the rule of law. Given that the rule of law is a conceptual thing, that’s very much a metaphor, hence non literal.

                Look, I get your joke, I’m not trying to belittle you or get into an argument or anything. I’m just explaining why you collected like 20 downvotes on it because you seem to want to know.

        • @Wogi
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          Pretend?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -7
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Technically, I own a little piece of earth from the center of the core to space. I can’t control the skies above me, but I technically own them.

          Brazil does not control the space in which the Starlink network operates. If Brazil wants to get in a pissing match over the operation of satellites that they can’t control, it will be about as effective as my efforts to stop 737s from overflying my house at 30,000 feet.

          About all they can do is threaten the operations of other Musk properties operating within Brazil.

          In a very real sense, Starlink is above the law. They can’t stop him from operating Starlink any more than we can stop foreign radio propaganda from being transmitted into our borders.

          Edit: For the exact same reason that Starlink is above the law in North Korea, it is above the law in Brazil.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            Technically, I own a little piece of earth from the center of the core to space. I can’t control the skies above me, but I technically own them.

            This is just plain incorrect in any jurisdiction of which I’m aware.

            If you own a house in suburbia, then you have a “title” which “entitles” you to certain rights within the boundaries described on set title. These rights will vary by jurisdiction but they’re things like the right to erect fences, erect structures, control access, contain livestock, and quietly enjoy that area.

            The concept of “owning” land merely means owning that title and the rights it confers.

            Your title will not grant you any rights as regards, for example, air traffic passing over the property in question.

            A classic example of this dynamic is mining rights. The specifics will vary a lot by jurisdiction, but generally a title holder does not have any rights as regards the minerals located below their property. In many cases this might be moot, given that the only way to mine those minerals may be to buy the property and construct a mine. However it does present some interesting intricacies of the law. For example in Australia you may be authorised to access private property for the purposes of a mineral survey (using a metal detector …) but it’s a fairly fraught practice being “technically allowed” might be small comfort when faced with a shotgun.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -54 months ago

              Brazil does not have title to or otherwise control that part of the sky where Starlink operates its satellites.

              You just used a lot of words to repeat what I said, while claiming I was incorrect.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                34 months ago

                The part where you said you own a little piece of earth down to the core, and up to space is incorrect.

                The part where you said Brazil does not “have title” to the sky implies a very limited understanding on your part.

              • @captainlezbian
                link
                English
                24 months ago

                Brazil is a sovereign nation, the bearer of the force from which these rights derive and the one who has the power to change them. Sovereign nations very famously have the right to control their airspace by force and while none have tested it I don’t doubt they can remove satellites from their low earth orbit if they give sufficient time to remove them.

                The difference between musk and Brazil is that Brazil has an Air Force in addition to just a space program.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  I don’t doubt they can remove satellites from their low earth orbit if they give sufficient time to remove them.

                  You really, really should doubt that. If we were talking about a handful of traditional communication satellites, I’d agree with you. The US military has demonstrated the capability of shooting down a couple satellites. But for what it costs, and in the time it takes to shoot down one satellite, Starlink can launch hundreds.

                  The idea of forcefully downing the Starlink constellation is well beyond the collective capability of every nation on the planet. Humanity does not have the ability to take direct, forceful action against that constellation. They can simply put them up faster than the rest of us can take them down.

                  No, the only way Brazil could even begin to try to impact Starlink would be by attempting to jam the RF spectrum in which it operates.

                  • @captainlezbian
                    link
                    English
                    14 months ago

                    Ok, but then you can get into the diplomatic capacity. An American company is subverting the sovereign capacity of Brazil. Now, this is South America so it could go either way here, but this is an area where it’s reasonable to request the host country to stop this behavior or face strained relations.

                    And for the “they can put them up faster than we can take them down”, that’s absolutely true if we only take them down rather than stopping them from putting them up.

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)
            link
            English
            14 months ago

            I’m not really interested in talking about sovereign nation powers with someone who got their political education from wikipedia.

            Try elsewhere, thanks.