Elon Musk’s social network is under pressure again. Brazilian justice ordered on Thursday that the social network An appeal that seems to have been heard: at the end of the day on Thursday, an association of Internet service providers reported that X was again inaccessible.
On Wednesday, some of the platform’s roughly 22 million users in Brazil were surprised to be able to access it again on their mobile phones.
However, on August 30, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the blocking of the social network owned by American billionaire Elon Musk, for ignoring a series of legal decisions related to the fight against disinformation.
X alleges an “unintentional” error.
On Thursday there was a counterattack from the Brazilian authorities who, the day before, had clearly been taken by surprise by the surprise return of reais (around 820,000 euros) per day.
But the Brazilian telecommunications agency (Anatel) said in a statement Thursday that “Rete X’s behavior demonstrates a deliberate intention to evade the Supreme Court’s order.” The agency assured that it will take ”the necessary measures in case of further attempts to circumvent the suspension”.
“Thanks to the support of telecommunications operators and the (cybersecurity) company Cloudflare, it has been possible to identify a mechanism which, we hope, (…) will be able to restore the block” of the platform, Anatel specified.
A “much more complicated” block.
X’s use of Cloudflare, which uses constantly changing IP addresses, “makes blocking the application much more complicated,” Abrint explained on Wednesday. Previously, IP addresses (which identify Internet users’ devices) were fixed and easily blocked.
The suspension of the platform in Brazil has started a heated debate in Latin America’s largest country, and beyond, about the limits of freedom of expression on social networks. Elon Musk had criticized the block, calling Judge Moraes a “dictator”. The Brazilian right, led by former head of state Jair Bolsonaro, followed suit. The suspension, however, was supported by the government of left-wing president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in the name of respecting the law.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Digital Rights Expert on the X Network Situation in Brazil
Editor: Good day, and welcome to another edition of Time.news. Today, we’re diving into the escalating situation involving X, the social network owned by Elon Musk, which is facing legal challenges in Brazil. Joining us is Dr. Laura Freitas, a digital rights expert with extensive experience in internet governance and platform regulation. Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Freitas.
Dr. Freitas: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s get straight to it. On August 30, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the blocking of X due to the platform’s failure to comply with legal orders aimed at combating disinformation. What implications does this decision have for both the platform and its users in Brazil?
Dr. Freitas: This decision underscores the increasing tension between national jurisdictions and global tech companies. Brazil’s action reflects a growing urgency to hold platforms accountable for the content they host, particularly misinformation. The implications for X are significant; they may face stricter scrutiny and greater pressures to comply with local laws, which could set a precedent for other countries as well.
Editor: That’s a critical point. Interestingly, just a day after the court’s order, X was reportedly accessible again to its users in Brazil, only to be blocked again shortly after. How unusual is this kind of back-and-forth, and what might it indicate about X’s operational strategies?
Dr. Freitas: This kind of back-and-forth is certainly unusual and indicates a level of confusion, both from the platform’s side and the regulatory authorities. X’s management may be attempting to navigate the complex legal landscape while keeping user engagement high. However, this creates a perception of instability, which can undermine user trust. Their claim of an “unintentional” error raises questions about their compliance protocols and responsiveness to judicial rulings.
Editor: It seems that many Brazilian users, around 22 million, were surprised to find the platform operational again on their mobile devices. How do you think such unexpected access affects user sentiment and trust in the platform?
Dr. Freitas: Trust is a fundamental component of user engagement on any social network. When users experience sudden changes—like unexpected access, followed by restrictions—it can lead to confusion and frustration. In the case of X, while some users might welcome the brief return, overarching concern regarding the platform’s ability to provide a stable environment is likely to linger. Users may start to question whether their voices can be heard consistently or if their experiences are subject to the whims of legal and regulatory challenges.
Editor: Excellent insights. On Thursday, we saw Brazilian authorities taking a counterattack by placing a daily fine on X. What does this signify in terms of government response strategies to tech companies that operate across borders?
Dr. Freitas: This illustrates a more aggressive stance from Brazilian authorities toward ensuring compliance from tech giants. By imposing fines, they’re not just discouraging non-compliance; they’re also sending a clear message that local laws must be respected, regardless of a company’s global stature. It highlights the need for multinational corporations to engage meaningfully with local regulations, rather than taking a reactive approach. This scenario could trigger broader discussions about the responsibilities of tech companies in various jurisdictions globally.
Editor: There’s definitely a larger narrative at play concerning tech companies and how they will respond to local governance. As we move forward, what do you foresee as potential outcomes of this ongoing situation for X?
Dr. Freitas: I anticipate that X will have to adapt quickly to avoid further legal battle. This may involve enhancing their compliance mechanisms to adhere to Brazilian laws on misinformation and data privacy. If they fail to do so, we might see increased regulatory actions, not just in Brazil but also in other countries watching closely. Ultimately, this could influence broader conversations around the responsibilities of tech platforms and even lead to more robust regulatory frameworks globally.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Freitas. Your expertise sheds valuable light on this complex situation. As we observe this unfolding scenario, one thing is clear: the intersection of technology, law, and society continues to evolve and generate significant dialogue.
Dr. Freitas: Thank you for the opportunity. It’s an essential dialogue, and I look forward to seeing how it develops.
Editor: And that’s a wrap for today’s interview. Stay tuned for more updates on this and other technology-related news. Thank you for listening!
