It's a stupid decision. Not only did that stupid Supreme Court judge ban X. They also banned Starlink, and are now viciously attacking VPNs because of Brazilian protectionism.
One might query whether the courts should be able to carry out this sort of legal demand, and whether it's the best way for a country to work. But evidently that is how Brazil works, so... well, if you're in Brazil, it's your responsibility to know and respect Brazilian law.
If Musk wants to flout those laws he can suffer the consequences. This is how the law works: everyone's supposed to obey it, and you don't get excused because you are rich. In fact, it's
absolutely fucking ace that Brazil has done this to Musk, in the sense of taking that principle and making it stick on one of the world's richest people.
Thus maybe instead we think less "Why has Brazil done this?" and more "Why don't we do this?"
Just for context here, the report has been finally been published on the Grenfell Fire in London. There's a lot of blame in there. But highest on the list is the deliberate greed and dishonesty of construction firms and deliberate strategy of the government to step back from well... governance. So over 70 people died avoidably. How did these corporations serve the community? Why don't we find that they have fundamentally failed the basics of responsibility we should expect from someone operating in our society, and exclude them from our society?
* * *
As a final note, I'm also going to add in here that Musk happily complies with all manner of oppressive regimes who want his company to prune comments and accounts that they don't like. The fact he's kicking up a stink about Brazil just means he's a hypocritical c\/nt. I have a suspicion that he's gutted FKA Twitter's moderation system so badly that it may actually be
unable to comply (Starlink, after all, did comply). Rather than admit that, instead he's engaged in childish posturing.
