This. He is definitely not a genius and not even smart. He can’t formulate any interesting, original thoughts. He parrots, daily, dumb ideas and state propaganda (for example, russia) without any critical thinking.
The average person on the street is smarter than him.
As a Brazilian citizen, X / Musk have broken the law and have been fined. The fines are meant to compensate for damages done against my country. I absolutely want that debt to be paid. Moraes, within the boundaries of the law, has seized assets from another company that belongs to the same individual who's committing those crimes and is trying to evade punishment by closing the fined company. This should never be allowed to be used as a means to evade punishment.
From where I'm standing, this is legal security - not the opposite. In fact, I don't know if the law would allow it, but morally I would be fine with Musk being given a prison order or other sanctions for using such artifices in an attempt to evade justice.
Musk owns 42% of SpaceX, Starlink is a subsidiary.
I can't speak to SpaceX shareholders because they are private, but of the public Tesla that's also associated with Musk, there are shareholders who want him out because his public behaviour is interfering with the business interests, and that argument will gain weight as a result of stuff like this.
Is that "deserved" depends a great deal about how you model the entire world, but activists investors are a thing and they do fight company management.
You have no idea how much disinformation there is in Brazil. Its basically 24/7 information warfare there, from both sides. I have family there, I was blown away by how aggressive it all was when visiting last year.
The only time they tried to do tracking on where these posts and sockpuppets were coming from, they ended up in Israel (this is a common practice, I'm assuming to make tracing and legal action more difficult. In Portugal the bots come from Angola).
Its clear that the same disinformation farms that are running in the US were duplicated to Brazil, by the same people (Bob Mercer / Steve Bannon). Proof of that was of course, the deeply personal relationship between Bannon and the Bolsonaro family (when he was out of jail he would visit all the time), and the faux January 6th that was replicated in Brazil after Bolsonaro's defeat.
You have to understand that the population of Brazil has A LOT less education than the population in the US or Europe. They are far more malleable to disinformation.
One of the worse examples I can think of is the disinformation campaign that was activated after the murder of Marielle Franco, who was tagged in fake photos with local Rio drug dealers - while she was still dead inside her car. So a few minutes after the murder, you had a giant disinformation campaign launched. Since it was so fast, the only reasonable conclusion is the murderers control a disinformation bot/sockpuppet farm.
He ignored court orders, he broke the law. By (repeatedly) doing that, he enabled terrorist groups and disinformation networks to attack Brazilian society and democracy.
They are both privately owned by a dude that reinstated accounts that make threats against members of Brazil’s supreme court(1) and then recently tried to reframe it as a petty squabble about posting by posting weird angry AI-generated memes about a judge (2).
It is unsurprising to see somebody that’s actively trying to push the envelope about a country’s sovereignty be hit with sanctions on their business operations inside said country.
This has been controversial in Brazil - not 100% clear cut. While suspending some of accounts making threats should be supported, de Moraes has been also going after what seem to be legit political activity
Furthermore, instead of banning the accounts upfront, for disputed casese, it would seem to be a fair to have court process for the people involved and let them defend their behaviour.
> Last week, the Supreme Court justices ruled on six appeals filed by Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (the group that controls Facebook and Instagram) against Moraes' decision in a virtual session. They all unanimously considered that blocking all channels, profiles and accounts of a person or party is an act of prior censorship, something expressly prohibited by the Constitution and also clearly rejected by the Internet Civil Rights Framework, in respect of freedom of expression.
Yes, on paper. The legal action against Starlink has claimed that they're being considered part of the same economic group for being controlled by the same private owner, who is considered direct responsible for the violations of one of them. Which is true.
Separate legal entities, according to the US legal system, yes. But they definitely aren't completely separate entities. It isn't like Brazil targeted Starlink at random.
In the practical sense, Twitter is the marketing arm of all his other companies. My theory was that he was acting out belligerently against the Brazillian government because his other companies had minimal or no presence in Brazil. Didn't think of Starlink presence frankly.
Regardless, since he himself uses Twitter as quid pro quo with other governments, I'm guessing he saw this move a mile away.
I said our ecosystem, not the ecosystem. It's very unlikely that we are able to cause a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth like what happened on Venus and there's no evidence that this is happening anyway (as we'd be unlikely to be able to stop it; we have about 2 billion years to figure that out). So we'll wipe ourselves out and a good chunk of life on Earth today, but we won't kill the planet.
It's a portable computer that does a bunch of useful things. I really don't understand the fraught relationship some people have with their phones. Just don't install social media apps and other time-wasters?
It's only useful because communites and local resources have first been destroyed by technology. After that, technology produces things to make us dependent on it. Modern life is a disaster as all of it is based on destroying the biosphere with unsustainable technological growth.
Is that what you imagine yourself to be doing here? - refining an argument? Thus far in this thread you seem struggling even to make one. The repeated insistence that, rather than participate in society, people prefer a remote cabin in Montana and all correspondence by parcel post, doesn't come close to qualifying.
The average person on the street is smarter than him.