It would be interesting to see how fast Brazilian network operators are changing things to implement the blocking and responding to things like that.

Cloudflare already isolated X on their network so that Brazil can block just X again.

&gt; These CDNs agreed with Anatel, to reserve IPs exclusively to X, so IPs can block X without collateral damage, that&#x27;s all.Thanks, the article didn&#x27;t say anything like that. It, of course, makes sense to avoid the obvious collateral damage. It didn&#x27;t seem like it started out that way based on this article though:&gt; X recently moved to servers hosted by Cloudflare and appeared to be using dynamic internet protocol addresses that constantly change...

They are not blocking Cloudflare or Fastly.They are blocking X IPs being used on Cloudflare and Fastly.These CDNs agreed with Anatel, to reserve IPs exclusively to X, so IPs can block X without collateral damage, that&#x27;s all.That said, Cloudflare is also blocking X. Cloudflare Warp doesn&#x27;t open X.com anymore, neither iCloud Relay&#x27;s (which seems to use Cloudflare).

I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s always true. It seems like it would have to depend on how the nation state responds to its citizens when the nation state does things like break large portions of the web. And what actual economic leverage the state has (or could bring to bear) over the company.Losing the citizenry might be more politically damaging faster than economically damaging to X&#x2F;Starlink.

Nation states will always win against a corporation. They are authorized to use force, both physical and economical. They also control access to their market.

None of this is “well conceived”. De Moraes is way too high on his own supply.

&gt; Brazil&#x27;s national telecommunication agency, Anatel, has been ordered by de Moraes to prevent access to the platform by blocking Cloudflare as well as Fastly and EdgeUno servers, and others that the court said had been &quot;created to circumvent&quot; a suspension of X in Brazil.Blocking Cloudflare and Fastly seems like a reactionary measure that is not exactly well conceived.

There was no &quot;coup attempt&quot;. There was a protest. Like many before it. Brazilians occupying Brasília buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. There&#x27;s just no way you can convincingly claim that a thousand people armed with flags and bibles amounts to a coup or even an attempt at one. The only thing they did which you might object to was beg the military to launch an intervention.The legal basis for that is a bit of brazilian law that dates back to our independence. It says the military is the so called &quot;4th power&quot;, the &quot;moderator power&quot; which is supposed to intervene if the balance between the other three democratic powers gets too screwed up. That&#x27;s exactly the situation we find ourselves in: unelected judge-kings that legislate and run the country. These protesters tried to invoke that bit of law by asking the brazilian military to intervene and put an end to it. They did not try to seize power for themselves, they asked the military to do it. The military refused to do it. Then they were arrested. Then the judges put them in a gulag.Your comments have helped me in the past. Sad to see that you believe in this narrative.

&gt; you do realize that the &quot;censorship&quot; being mentioned is of literal terrorists?I don&#x27;t follow this very closely, but I wonder: if the Brazilian state or justice system consider them terrorists, what is getting in the way of bringing them to justice?

Remember kids, free speech means that everyone is contractually obligated to algorithmically broadcast everything you say, even if it is literal terrorism, to as many people as possible. Failure to do this is literally 1984.(&#x2F;s)

You do realize that the &quot;censorship&quot; being mentioned is of literal terrorists?Terrorism: the use of violence to achieve political aims (if you are not yourself a recognized nation).This is exactly what these people did in their coup attempt. I for one would rather not have another coup organized on Twitter, thank you very much.(and before anyone brings it up - even if someone works for the PR or leadership arms of a terrorist organization, rather than actually performing the violence personally, that does not mean they stop being a terrorist)

Putting &quot;literal&quot; in front of a word does not clarify the definition of that word.

It is. What you think is truth today can easily be considered misinformation tomorrow.

Yes, because who gets to decide what is or is not misinformation?

Misinformation... According to whom?You?These partisan judge-kings?Politicians who lie pathologically?So who gets the honor of being the ministry of truth?

&quot;Censoring&quot; literal misinformation is a bad thing now?

This seems like a worthwhile fight. I&#x27;m surprised to see someone taking it up, though, most of the time company&#x27;s just seem to comply with government mandated censorship.

What should be shocking business is right in front of our noses: Other reports say investors in Musk&#x27;s aquisition of Twitter are on the hook for billions of dollars.How do they (and other investors in X) stand by while Musk sacrifices large markets for personal political battles? It&#x27;s not just Brazil - look at how he gives up advertising revenue in order to promote far-right hate speech on X.More broadly, if a corporation invests in DEI or ESG, which are relatively cheap, there&#x27;s an uproar that it&#x27;s not appropriate for businesses. If Musk (or others) lose large amounts for partisan political battles, it&#x27;s accepted. In part I&#x27;m just saying the obvious: the uproars about DEI and ESG is has nothing to do with business or profits, and is really about reactionary politics. On the other hand, it&#x27;s still shocking that investors give sacrifice this much money for Musk&#x27;s and other people&#x27;s partisan &#x27;cause&#x27;.Perhaps they feel they have much wealth to gain from the &#x27;cause&#x27;, which arguably is about big business and wealth seizing political power (see the Lewis Powell memo and, for example: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;the.levernews.com&#x2F;master-plan&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;the.levernews.com&#x2F;master-plan&#x2F;</a> ).

The tone of the responses from X have changed a great deal since the whole thing began. There’s much less of a confrontational approach, presumably because given the declines in revenues, they’re realizing they can’t afford more of it.

I saw that, but I was curious once X decides to pull the money from the accounts (assuming they can, which I guess is a big assumption at this point).

According to the article, they&#x27;ve previously collected by just withdrawing money directly from X&#x27;s and&#x2F;or Starlink&#x27;s local accounts:&gt; Brazil previously withdrew money for fines it levied against X from the accounts of X and Starlink at financial institutions in the country.

Could they get sued in a different country? I know when Argentina defaulted on bonds a naval ship was impounded in Ghana <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;Q7pB9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;Q7pB9</a>

SpaceX has physical infrastructure in Brazil worth millions. They can start there, just confiscate the Starlink ground stations.

How do they plan on collecting on that if the money is moved out of Brazilian accounts?

X and Starlink face $1M in daily fines for alleged ban evasion in Brazil