Starlink will now be free in Brazil since remote hospitals, schools use it: Musk(metropoles.com)
metropoles.com
Starlink will now be free in Brazil since remote hospitals, schools use it: Musk
https://www.metropoles.com/brasil/musk-starlink-dara-internet-de-graca-ate-resolver-bloqueio-de-contas
96 comments
Brazil has strong antitrust laws and can determine that different companies with a common major stakeholder are an "economic group". They have had issues in the past with wealthy people controlling multiple companies and creating an anti-competitive market, so they created these laws to combat such a thing.
Thank you, this is actually useful context
An internet search with terms such as "Brazil" "CADE" (their regulatory body) and "economic group" will give good results. Here is an article that discusses a 20% threshold of ownership to be considered in an "economic group".
https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-econom...
https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/en/unico/cade-criteria-econom...
Why is them being separate companies relevant when they have the same ownership? If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
Public companies are not personal assets though. These are public corporations with limited liability, not sole proprietorships.
Limited liability is what made modern commerce what it is today.
Limited liability is what made modern commerce what it is today.
Americans and Europeans are used to a very specific definition of liability when it comes to large businesses.
Which is an issue honestly.
Not saying that Brazil have the good definition but it’s pretty infuriating how in US and Europe, you are pretty rarely accused when your company really misbehaves.
I mean, we may have thousands of cases of companies killing people due to bad decisions and executives are mostly never prosecuted.
Not saying that Brazil have the good definition but it’s pretty infuriating how in US and Europe, you are pretty rarely accused when your company really misbehaves.
I mean, we may have thousands of cases of companies killing people due to bad decisions and executives are mostly never prosecuted.
One of their shareholders is the same. Their total and majority ownership is completely different.
The legal dispute isn't with Elon Musk (the person) but X (Twitter)
However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses
If you can't see any difference here I really can't help you
However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses
If you can't see any difference here I really can't help you
The problem is that those other businesses aren't really his. There are too many other people on board. They're also not related businesses. It's one of thing if there's a cabal of companies acting in concert to stifle competition, but these companies are as different as they could possibly be.
Now stockholders should be asking whether going into Brazil is worth the risk because any major stockholder might be punished for their position in an entirely unrelated company. The answer may be yes, it's worth the risk, but the question should definitely be asked.
Now stockholders should be asking whether going into Brazil is worth the risk because any major stockholder might be punished for their position in an entirely unrelated company. The answer may be yes, it's worth the risk, but the question should definitely be asked.
Can't the rest of majority stockholder push Elon to comply with Brasilian court rules instead?
It's not just Elon who is punished. It's easier to track exposure to Brazil than exposure to any high level official in a company or stockholder who may be punished for activity in another irrelevant company.
Also, imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
Also, imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
Yeah, this is basically a conflict of interest! Force someone to act because something is forced upon another.
>However, the judge is punishing Elon (the person) via collateral damage to his other businesses
How else is the judge supposed to punish Elon then, if he doesn't live in Brasil? All the judge can do is go after his assets in Brazilian jurisdiction. Yes, 40% of a company is also an asset in many jurisdictions.
How else is the judge supposed to punish Elon then, if he doesn't live in Brasil? All the judge can do is go after his assets in Brazilian jurisdiction. Yes, 40% of a company is also an asset in many jurisdictions.
Why is he supposed to be punished personally tho? The matter is with the company, the company should be punished.
Because I think CEOs should be held accountable for their companies not complying with laws.
you are the CEO of ACME company, one of your employee broke a law but in the name of your ACME company, you are going to jail.
very shortcoming rhetoric
very shortcoming rhetoric
You're conveniently leaving out the the part where the CEO is not complying with the court ruling before being sent to jail. Employees, companies and CEOs making mistakes is not the problem, not complying with the court ruling is, that's what tends to get people in jail.
Are you incapable of differentiating between X (Twitter) the corporate and Elon Musk, the human entity?
You can differentiate them and still see the relationship. Musk has businesses in Brazil, and needs to comply with local laws. You may agree with the law or not, but you may not claim ignorance of it in order to get away from punishment.
Relevant Elon tweet: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1829317832489816083
So it's for existing customers, and it's because they're unable to accept payment for reasons that aren't the customers' fault.
To be fair, Starlink can't continue offering services to new customers either because they've been effectively forbidden from doing business there.
(The merits of the case and each parties viewpoints are a separate matter.)
(The merits of the case and each parties viewpoints are a separate matter.)
Is this judge freezing SpaceX’s finances because Twitter won’t censor speech?
Those are two completely different companies.
Those are two completely different companies.
Why is them being separate companies relevant when they have the same ownership?
If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
If a judge goes after you they go after all your assets.
They don't have the same ownership though. Imagine if you own 70% of one company and 40% of another, and then the company you own 40% of is de-banked in a country because the company you own 70% of chose to stop doing business in that country. It's corruption at an unprecedented scale.
How is this corruption just because countries have different rules and laws? Not every country has the same laws like the US/Angloshpere. Just because you don't like the ruling,
and see it as unfair, doesn't automatically make it corruption.
Did the judge break Brazilian laws? If yes, then we can say it's corruption.
Not saying there isn't corruption in Brasil since there definitely is, I'm saying, is this particular ruling a case of corruption by Brasil's laws, yes or no?
Did the judge break Brazilian laws? If yes, then we can say it's corruption.
Not saying there isn't corruption in Brasil since there definitely is, I'm saying, is this particular ruling a case of corruption by Brasil's laws, yes or no?
It is not as simple as that.
The law said that 2+2=4 and this was the accepted jurisprudence but now he is saying that 2+2=5 because he wants and he can do that because he is a supreme court judge and his decisions legally are the new accepted interpretation of the law.
It's a flaw in Brazilian political that enables supreme court judges to virtually do whatever they want including legislating because they can pick any law and bend it. In a healthy system the supreme court would be challenged by the senate but this doesn't happen because most senators are corrupt and it is the supreme court who judge such cases.
The law said that 2+2=4 and this was the accepted jurisprudence but now he is saying that 2+2=5 because he wants and he can do that because he is a supreme court judge and his decisions legally are the new accepted interpretation of the law.
It's a flaw in Brazilian political that enables supreme court judges to virtually do whatever they want including legislating because they can pick any law and bend it. In a healthy system the supreme court would be challenged by the senate but this doesn't happen because most senators are corrupt and it is the supreme court who judge such cases.
let me fix that for you: ..because Twitter won’t suppress criminal speech. (see if it makes sense now).
[deleted]
I don’t think the technicalities of incorporation and branding matter that much, it’s a “Elon Musk company”, unfortunately.
That’s thuggish, lawless behavior that undermines trust in Brazil’s business environment.
It's possibly immoral? It's not really lawless if the local Supreme Court makes the decision.
Some countries hold executives and figureheads responsible cross companies. This is actually a good thing.
The SpaceX board can now decide if they want to keep someone like Elon up. If this cost is worth keeping Elon around then the free market has spoken :)
The SpaceX board can now decide if they want to keep someone like Elon up. If this cost is worth keeping Elon around then the free market has spoken :)
It sounds like they’re freezing one companies payments due to the conduct of another company. Aren’t these two totally distinct legal entities? Whether they share a figurehead that doesn’t sound like a place I would want to start my business in ?
cassianoleal(1)
Musk has nearly 80% voting control, and 40% equity. So he has more control over the board than they do over him.
If there is one place where technicalities should matter, that is in a court of law.
SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.
SpaceX is only 40% owned by Musk.
Sometimes what matters is voting control, not ownership. If the same entity has >50% control in two companies, the companies may not be seen as fully independent before the law.
The fact that the same person owns both does not necessarily make them dependent on one another unless they are structured or operated in a way that intertwines their activities, finances, or management.
I think the point is that if the same person is accountable for both, they're pretty much "intertwined".
Imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
The idea is that responsibility is held by the CEO/owner in control. So if someone owns companies A and B and they do something illegal through company A, then it's logical to say that the CEO/owner of company B has committed something illegal (it's the same person!).
I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard.
I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?
I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard.
I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?
[deleted]
Well, he is still the CEO, the CTO and Chairman.
In a lot of countries, executives (which Elon is clearly the top most here) have personal legal responsibilities.
Also, if I understand correctly, Musk is playing the game of having no legal entity in Brazil but still to technically stay present in the country (and probably make business but I’m unsure).
IDK if making him pay with another of its companies is legal but in that precise situation, it does feel pretty moral.
On the substance of the case of this censorship conflict, I have not enough information to make my judgment but still, Brazil is a sovereign country with its laws and Twitter have no natural right to be present in Brazil while still not respecting the law.
In a lot of countries, executives (which Elon is clearly the top most here) have personal legal responsibilities.
Also, if I understand correctly, Musk is playing the game of having no legal entity in Brazil but still to technically stay present in the country (and probably make business but I’m unsure).
IDK if making him pay with another of its companies is legal but in that precise situation, it does feel pretty moral.
On the substance of the case of this censorship conflict, I have not enough information to make my judgment but still, Brazil is a sovereign country with its laws and Twitter have no natural right to be present in Brazil while still not respecting the law.
isnt it funny how its completely obvious, yet the mere mention of this attracts a downvote brigade on this site.
"Free... until this matter is resolved."
SpaceX statement.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1829253524842303678.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1829253524842303678.html
Wow. I thought Reuters was an upper tier publisher. That is totally unreadable on my iPhone. The page is jumping all over the place as I try to scroll.
Related from earlier:
Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962
Starlink's financial assets frozen in Brazil
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962
Why the hell does Elon want to meddle in other countries' internal strifes? And why should a foreign country accept influence from another country's business man? Ethics aside, this is about something else.
Take a day off.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41397639
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41397639
Does anyone have a sense of how practically difficult it would be to detect an active Starlink installation?
Good move, Elon. Very cool
US should respond symmetrically and freeze accounts of some random(with Durov arrest), EU (threatening letter to Musk) and UK (prison sentences for mildly offensive tweets) are fighting to limit free speech under very similar pretenses that freedom of the press was limited in Nazi Germany or USSR (fighting foreign influence, “misinformation”, protecting kids)
Some societies are robust and can afford free press/free speech while keeping peace major Brazilian company. /s
On a serious note it’s interesting to see how countries around the world from France and internal cohesion. Modern multicultural and multi-ethnic states in EU may have to become way more authoritarian to keep going.
> Some societies are robust and can afford free press/free speech while keeping peace
Oh yeah. The US were an interestingly robust society and democracy to observe since the Trump election.
Oh yeah. The US were an interestingly robust society and democracy to observe since the Trump election.
Set aside the details of the case — if money actually translated into power, the richest man in the world wouldn't be struggling to strong-arm an unelected bureaucrat in a country of middling importance.
Kind of obvious IMO that money translates into less real-world power than ever before in history. In 1800, this judge would be at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. In 1950, he'd be deposed in a paid coup. In 2024... the richest man in the world complains about him on Twitter.
Kind of obvious IMO that money translates into less real-world power than ever before in history. In 1800, this judge would be at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. In 1950, he'd be deposed in a paid coup. In 2024... the richest man in the world complains about him on Twitter.
Brazil is both richer and more powerful than Musk. It's one of the top-10 largest economies in the world. They have so much more money than Musk they can maintain exclusive control over land, raise a military, and enforce their own laws and regulations within their borders. Never seen Musk even attempt anything like that.
Brazil the country is, but Brazil the country is also made up of people, and none of them individually hold $250 billion of assets that they could use against someone - that's about 10% of Brazil's GDP (not that GDP/net worth is a particularly good comparison for a ton of reasons, but it gives a general indicator).
100 or 200 years ago someone with that kind of wealth could definitely have had a country strong-armed into doing what they want - someone like the owners of the United Fruit Company or the East India Company.
100 or 200 years ago someone with that kind of wealth could definitely have had a country strong-armed into doing what they want - someone like the owners of the United Fruit Company or the East India Company.
> none of them individually hold $250 billion of assets that they could use against someone
That's not what's happening here though. What's happening is the Brazilian state, through a Supreme Court justice, going against Musk. Not a single individual.
That's not what's happening here though. What's happening is the Brazilian state, through a Supreme Court justice, going against Musk. Not a single individual.
Setting aside if Brazil is richer than Musk, his wealth is his stock. He doesn’t have tens of billions in liquid assets and he most likely never will.
So let’s remember that when assuming that billionaires whose wealth is mostly tied up in their company are actually a lot less wealthy and are less able to extract their wealth then the news makes it out to be.
So let’s remember that when assuming that billionaires whose wealth is mostly tied up in their company are actually a lot less wealthy and are less able to extract their wealth then the news makes it out to be.
This is true, but neither can Brazil utilise their entire economy against him. Musk could definitely get a few billion out if he really tried (he got a $6b loan backed by Tesla stock and $20 billion in cash to buy Twitter), and the equivalent of that amount back in the day would have been enough to finance a military expedition - the Boer War was at the modern day cost of 25 billion pounds.
I mean if we want to use that yardstick than Brazil has assets worth trillions.
I'm curious why you'd call Brasil a country of middling importance. What countries in the Western Hemisphere other than US and Canada have larger economies, military and local impact? Having the Amazon rainforest within its borders alone probably makes it an extremely significant nation internationally.
The really important countries are known as superpowers for a reason, and "BRICS" pretentions aside, Brazil is not in that club, it can't project power outside its immediate neighborhood and doesn't really even try. Economically, it's in the same league as Mexico.
Mexico is the #1 trading partner with the US (even beating China) can Brazil really be compared?
No, it cannot. India and Mexico are where the factories will likely migrate to in the post-Chinese manufacturing world. Brazil probably wasn't even considered.
It's kind of funny how Brazil always ends up named as part of the "BRIC" group. India put a spacecraft on the moon. Russia is, well, Russia. China is unquestionably a world power. Brazil is... The world's soy and cattle farm.
It's kind of funny how Brazil always ends up named as part of the "BRIC" group. India put a spacecraft on the moon. Russia is, well, Russia. China is unquestionably a world power. Brazil is... The world's soy and cattle farm.
Brazil is fairly large in nominal terms but projects essentially no presence internationally, either diplomatically, economically, culturally, or militarily. It barely can even project influence within South America, despite being half the
continent.
I'm not trying to diss the country, not every country could or should aspire to hegemony... but Brazil could sink into the Atlantic and I'd read about it in the NYTimes two weeks later.
I'm not trying to diss the country, not every country could or should aspire to hegemony... but Brazil could sink into the Atlantic and I'd read about it in the NYTimes two weeks later.
And this folks, is why us Brazilians look up to the US so much. The respect, understanding and affection we receive is unparalleled.
After the US and China every country is middling, economically speaking. There’s a huge gap between China and the next largest country (Germany).
Oh how fun life is going to be when LLMs take over 99% of jobs and literally everyone is a slave to the whims and fancies of powerdrunk idiots :)
I think you are just looking at one specific issue on the wrong timescale. Palms will be greased and he will get what he wants.
Im not disagreeing, but how do you figure that it’s obvious and in 1950 or 1800 it would have been different?
That's an interesting thought. Although that might say more about geopolitical dynamics (US/Brazil, and in general) than the power of the billionaire class.
It should be noted these are two entirely different companies. Hard to see this as anything else except Brazil having a "rocket man bad"-moment.