SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary," said Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Friday ordered the nationwide suspension of Elon Musk's X social media platform in response to the billionaire's failure to comply with the judge's directive to appoint a legal representative in the South American country.
Moraes ordered the "immediate, complete, and total suspension of X's operations" in the nation of 215 million people, "until the court's judicial decisions are complied with and the fines applied are paid" and "until a representative of the company in the country is appointed."
The judge also infuriated Musk by blocking his SpaceX company from conducting financial transactions in Brazil over millions of dollars in unpaid fines imposed on X—formerly known as Twitter—for breaking Brazilian laws.
"X Brazil failed to comply with several court orders, as well as the willful intention of evading responsibility for complying with the court orders issued."
Earlier this month, Musk withdrew X's staff from Brazil after Moraes threatened to arrest the company's legal representative if the platform did not delete user accounts spreading far-right misinformation and hate speech in violation of Brazilian law.
"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country," Moraes said.
"The president of the National Telecommunications Agency, Carlos Manuel Baigorri, must take all measures to ensure the suspension," Moraes continued, adding that he "also ordered Apple and Google to take measures to block the use of the application by iOS and Android systems, in addition to removing it from their virtual stores."
Internet service providers and app stores have five days to comply with Moraes' ruling. People who use virtual public networks (VPNs) to skirt the new ban are subject to a roughly $8,900 fine.
Moraes stated that he "made every possible effort and granted every opportunity for X Brazil to comply with the judicial orders and pay the fines, which would have avoided the adoption of this more serious measure."
"Unfortunately," he added, "the illicit conduct was repeated in this investigation, making it clear that X Brazil failed to comply with several court orders, as well as the willful intention of evading responsibility for complying with the court orders issued."
In April, Moraes
launched a criminal investigation into Musk's alleged obstruction of justice and incitement to crime.
Friday's decision comes amid a monthslong feud between Musk—the world's wealthiest person—and Moraes. Musk has accused the judge of "censorship" and of being a "tyrant."
"Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge," Musk
said Thursday on X in one of several increasingly sophomoric posts.
However, as Brazil-based journalist Brian Mier
explained, "this is about sovereignty."
"Treating a system where the rich can buy more reach than normal citizens as if it were a democratic commons, as a 'free speech' issue, is ludicrous," Mier wrote on X. "In the Global South, U.S. social media corporations are coup machines."
In the 1960s, the United States played an instrumental role in overthrowing a democratically elected Brazilian government and installing a 21-year military dictatorship in which a young Jair Bolsonaro—the former right-wing Brazilian leader who is the target of multiple criminal probes led by Moraes—served as an army officer.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva offered thoughts on Musk and the case ahead of Friday's ruling during a television interview.
"Who does he think he is?" asked Lula. "He has to respect the rules of this country."
A monthslong standoff reached a critical juncture this week when a Brazilian judge moved close to ordering a shutdown of X in the country and froze the assets of another Elon Musk-owned business.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticized Elon Musk on Friday after the X owner defied a Brazilian Supreme Court order to name a legal representative, as tensions between the billionaire and the government escalated and the social media platform risked being taken offline in Latin America's largest economy.
Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes late Wednesday gave the company 24 hours to name a legal representative in Brazil—a requirement to operate a business there—or have its operations shut down. X didn't comply, instead issuing the latest in a series of statements denouncing de Moraes. As of this writing, no shutdown of X in Brazil has occurred.
Another layer to the standoff was also revealed on Thursday: De Moraes on August 18 had quietly ordered the Brazilian bank accounts of Starlink, a Musk-owned satellite internet company, to be frozen, due to unpaid fines owed by X.
Lula, a left-leaning former unionist who retook the presidency early last year after leading the country from 2003 until 2011, defended the judge's position in a radio interview Friday morning, arguing that everyone, no matter how powerful, must follow Brazilian law.
"Just because the guy [Musk] has a lot of money doesn’t mean they can disrespect you," Lula said, according to a translation in The Guardian.
"Who does he think he is?" he added.
Tenho conta no Twitter há +de 10 anos. Sempre foi a melhor rede social.
Na Primavera Árabe no Egito, usei o Twitter pra enviar charges aos manifestantes.
Tenho história aqui.
Mas depois que o patife Musk o comprou, virou esgoto da extrema-direita.
Adeus Twitter. Vai fazer falta. pic.twitter.com/ao9Pbnu3wy
— Carlos Latuff (@LatuffCartoons) August 29, 2024
In April, De Moraes ordered X to deactivate more than 100 accounts of users whom he said were spreading disinformation. The accounts, which were not made public, are reportedly linked to the same far-right movement that stormed government buildings in Brasilia on January 8, 2023, in support of former president Jair Bolsonaro, who had just given up power days earlier. Bolsonaro, a far-right politician, spread lies of voter fraud and reportedly planned a coup after losing the 2022 election.
De Moraes led Brazil's effort to fight fake news ahead of the 2022 election and made the April ruling to try to combat disinformation ahead of municipal elections in October.
Musk refused to comply with the April order, arguing that it was illegal and an act of censorship targeted at the judge's political opponents. He has repeatedly called de Moraes a "dictator" and positioned himself as a defender of democracy. His defiance of de Moraes has drawn praise from U.S. Republicans and right-wingers in Brazil.
Musk calls himself a "free-speech absolutist" but critics have rejected that characterization. In a Common Dreamsop-ed last year, Free Press senior director Tim Karr argued Musk was "absolutely an enemy of free speech" and accused him of "taking extraordinary efforts to silence any honest criticism and independent research that might negatively impact him or his businesses."
Earlier this month, X closed its active operations in Brazil, saying that de Moraes had threatened their legal representative with arrest. That led to the standoff this week in which de Moraes ordered the company to name a legal representative.
The social media platform has, as X planned when it withdrew its staff, remained available to Brazilian users. When or if it will be closed following the closure of the 24-hour window is unclear. The company said in a statement that it expects a shutdown "soon."
To shutter the website, de Moraes would have to issue an order to the national telecommunications regulator, which would in turn relay it to internet providers. Experts say that process could be completed quickly—perhaps in 12 hours—but many Brazilians would still be able to access X via virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Some legal experts have criticized de Moraes for freezing Starlink's bank accounts, which makes it impossible for the company to do business in Brazil. Starlink provides internet services in remote areas, including in the Amazon. Starlink is a subsidiary of SpaceX, which is 42% owned by Musk. Musk has emphasized that SpaceX is an entirely separate company from X, with different shareholders.
De Moraes' rationale for the asset freezing is that X hasn't paid its fines, which accrue daily and are reportedly now above $3.6 million in total.
Brazil has more than 20 million X users, sixth in the world, according to Statista.
The level of power and influence the world's richest man has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
Elon Musk is perhaps one of the purest examples in recent years of the conversion of raw economic power into informational, social, and political power. What makes Musk such a dangerous figure is those various forms of power combined with his willingness to openly lie about his personal and corporate relationships to issues of free speech and democracy.
The level of power and influence he has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
After the riots that broke out in the UK following the murder of three young children in the town of Southport, a number of social media users were arrested and charged in relation to those riots. Musk amplified tweets that claimed the use of the law in this manner was “Orwellian.” In other words, a repressive state was cracking down on citizens for little more than expressing their opinions or thinking in the wrong way. But that argument hid the fact that many of those arrested were charged under UK law with inciting both violence and racial hatred: forms of speech rightly illegal in many countries.
Nevertheless, in “1984” terms Musk pitched himself as standing alongside the Winston Smiths of this world in battle against the Big Brothers. As the defender of the rights of the “ordinary person” in the face of a violent, elite, repressive machine.
You could cut the irony with a knife.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought a communication platform that enables him to control information and messaging across the globe. With that platform he also gathers huge amounts of data on users. He uses his position to advocate for political candidates and political agendas he supports and cooperates with various authoritarian regimes to shut down messages and accounts critical of their power. His company literally pays individuals whose accounts spread and amplify proven disinformation, and has himself spread and amplified proven disinformation. He throttled access to news outlets he disagreed with. He threatened to sue individuals and organizations that have been nothing more than critical of his own communication platform and other business dealings. When advertisers decide that they no longer wish to spend money on his platform because of increasing levels of disinformation and hate speech, he threatened to sue them as well.
There is something Orwellian going on here, but not in the way Musk claims.
In “1984” Orwell came up with the term “doublethink” to refer to how the exercise of pure authoritarian power includes getting people to believe two things at the same time, even if those two things are in direct contradiction. The most classic examples from the book being the expressions War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run.
Musk is the defender of free speech and democracy who censors opponents of authoritarian regimes. Musk is the advocate of free and open debate who sues people who criticize his platform. Musk is the lover of the free market who threatens to take advertisers who won’t give him money to court. Musk is the defender of workers who actively fights organized labor.
As an academic, I realize that my criticism of Musk will likely be dismissed along ideological grounds. But I can tell you that academics have been warning about the dangers of excessive concentration of private and corporate mainstream media ownership for decades, and that criticism was in relation to all media, including mainstream outlets people call “left-wing.” We warned that power would continue to concentrate and that the damage to democracy could be severe. Yet, when we made those warnings, mainstream journalists, editors and owners largely dismissed them as out of touch and irrelevant. What do academics know of the real world?
Well, here we are now with Musk.
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run. By his actions Musk has shown no indication that he has no real interest in freedom of speech or ordinary working people. This should be of grave concern to all citizens regardless of their political inclination.
Orwell, a social democrat, was ahead of his time in anticipating the use of technology in surveillance and disinformation in the service of power. Musk is right that Orwell is relevant to today’s society. He’s just wrong about what side of the fight he is on.