this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
186 points (99.5% liked)

World News

38978 readers
2951 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday seized about $3 million from bank accounts belonging to social media platform X and satellite-based internet service provider Starlink, both companies controlled by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

The move by Justice Alexandre de Moraes was aimed at collecting funds that are equivalent to the amount that X owes to the country in fines. The bank accounts of the two companies have since been unfrozen.

Legal analysts have questioned de Moraes’ prior decision to freeze Starlink’s bank account to pay for cases related to X. While Musk owns both X and SpaceX, which operates Starlink, the two companies are separate entities.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

About the claims that X and Starlink are separate entities and one shouldn't be affected by the other: it has since been revealed that it was Starlink who paid the salaries of X's employees.

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you got a link for that?

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 20 points 1 month ago

Getting hard to find it now with so many other news about the whole thing, but I found this one that kinda brushes over it: https://agendadopoder.com.br/x-demite-funcionarios-do-brasil-e-nao-paga-fgts-alegando-bloqueio-de-contas-da-starlink/

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 46 points 1 month ago

Courts are supposed to seize assets, especially when the defendant is a notorious deadbeat.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Wait, Leon made this whole hullabaloo was over $3M?

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 10 points 1 month ago

It only got to $3M because the fine increased daily. It started at zero and all he needed to do was follow the court's orders to suspend accounts from users that were breaking the law.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's the fine.
The original issue was not taking down illegal content in X even though there was a court order and a fine to do so, and withdrawing their legal representation from the country when they were expected to legally represent the company (i.e take responsibility for X breaking the law). Brazil requires companies to have that in order to operate, so X got blocked, and now the fine has been taken for their assets.

[–] sugartits@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Classic Leon

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Ride em cowboy!

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Who wants to bet that a Boeing negotiator will get sent to handle the issue.