After months of defiance, Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, has told Brazil’s Supreme Court that it has complied with orders to curb the spread of misinformation. The direction shift comes as Musk seeks to lift a ban on the platform following a prolonged battle with the Brazilian judiciary over what he called ‘censorship.’ The court had suspended access to X in late August, leaving Brazilians needing the platform in one of its largest global markets.
X, which boasts 21.5 million users in Brazil, attempted to circumvent the ban by using third-party cloud services, allowing temporary access. However, the effort was short-lived, especially after Moraes threatened heavy fines. In a more conciliatory move, X recently appointed a local legal representative in Brazil, signalling a shift in its approach.
In documents submitted to the court, X confirmed that it had blocked nine accounts linked to a hate speech and misinformation investigation. The action reflects a change in Musk’s strategy, as sources close to him suggest he now plans to comply with local laws while continuing to defend free speech through legal avenues.
Why does it matter?
Musk’s battle with the Brazilian judiciary mirrors similar tensions in countries like Australia and the UK, where governments are working to curb online misinformation. Despite his stance as a free speech advocate, Musk’s recent actions in Brazil indicate a more pragmatic approach to navigating regulatory challenges in key markets.
As X awaits the court’s decision, which could restore access within days, analysts believe that Musk’s surprising backtracking demonstrates a recognition that fighting the law in Brazil could have further damaged his standing in the country. Now, the company appears ready to respect legal boundaries, even if it means fighting battles in the courtroom rather than on the platform.
X later clarified that the restoration of access was unintentional. The platform’s Global Affairs team explained that a switch in network providers caused the issue, allowing some users in Brazil to log back in due to a rerouting of infrastructure supporting Latin America. The temporary fix was not deliberate, and the company expects the block to be reinstated soon.
According to the Brazilian Association of Internet and Telecommunications Providers (Abrint), the update routed users through third-party cloud services outside the country. This allowed them to bypass local restrictions without needing virtual private networks (VPNs).
Brazil’s telecom regulator, Anatel, is now working to enforce the original block more effectively. However, the situation remains complex, as blocking access to cloud services could inadvertently impact other critical sectors like government and financial services, posing additional challenges for regulators.
Russia is ramping up its efforts to control the internet by allocating nearly 60 billion roubles ($660 million) over the next five years to upgrade its web censorship system, known as TSPU. The system, developed by state regulator Roskomnadzor, is designed to filter and block content deemed harmful or illegal by the government. The funding, part of a broader ‘Cybersecurity Infrastructure’ project, will acquire new software and hardware and expand the system’s capabilities.
The initiative is seen as part of Moscow’s broader crackdown on online freedoms, which has intensified since Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The government has been targeting independent media and social media platforms, blocking websites, and cracking down on using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which many Russians use to bypass government restrictions. Roskomnadzor has been increasingly influential in blocking access to these tools, with officials planning to enhance the system’s efficiency further.
The TSPU system was introduced under a 2019 law that requires internet service providers to install government-controlled equipment to monitor and manage web traffic. As of late 2022, over 6,000 TSPU devices had been deployed across Russian networks. The new funding will modernise this infrastructure and improve the system’s ability to detect and block VPN services, making it harder for Russians to access uncensored content.
Why does this matter?
While the Kremlin continues to position these measures as necessary for national security, critics see them as a blatant attack on free speech. Digital rights activists, including those from Roskomsvoboda, warn that while new investments in censorship technology will tighten government control, it is unlikely to eliminate access to independent information. Developers of VPNs and other circumvention tools remain determined, stating that innovation and motivation are essential in the ongoing struggle between censorship and free access.
Russia’s battle with VPNs and independent media is part of a broader campaign against what it calls Western information warfare. Despite the government’s efforts to clamp down, demand for alternative ways to access the internet remains high. Developers are working on more resilient tools, even as the state pours resources into strengthening its censorship apparatus. This tug-of-war between government control and free access to information seems set to continue, with both sides ramping up their efforts.
Elon Musk’s Starlink has become entangled in a legal dispute with Brazil, as the company reluctantly complies with a court order to block access to the country’s social media platform X. The compliance comes just a day after Starlink initially informed Brazil’s telecom regulator, Anatel, that it would defy the order, setting up a clash with the Brazilian judiciary. The legal battle is centred around actions by Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the freezing of Starlink’s accounts as a precaution against unpaid fines owed by X and, thus, by Musk.
The conflict escalated after Moraes directed all internet providers in Brazil to block access to X, citing the platform’s failure to maintain a legal representative, which was one of the conditions imposed by the court. The decision, which was upheld by a panel of Supreme Court justices, has led to the platform’s shutdown in Brazil. Despite initial resistance, Starlink reversed its stance and began implementing the block, with Anatel confirming that access to X has already started being cut off.
To our customers in Brazil (who may not be able to read this as a result of X being blocked by @alexandre):
The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected.
Following last week’s order from @alexandre that froze Starlink’s finances and prevents Starlink…
Starlink, which serves over 200,000 customers in Brazil, expressed its discontent with the situation in a post on X, labelling the freezing of its assets as illegal. The company has initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court, arguing that Moraes’ orders violate the Brazilian constitution. However, Starlink missed a deadline to file a new appeal against the asset freeze, leaving its next legal steps uncertain.
The standoff highlights broader tensions between Musk and the Brazilian judiciary, raising concerns about the balance between state power and the protection of free speech. Musk’s pushback against what he views as government overreach has now turned into an ardent legal battle, with potential implications for internet freedom and the role of tech companies in upholding or challenging state authorities.
An unusual pair of news anchors in Venezuela has emerged—El Pana and La Chama. These AI-generated figures, designed to look and sound realistic, are the creation of Connectas, a Colombia-based organisation. The ‘Operation Retweet’ initiative aims to disseminate news from several independent Venezuelan media outlets while protecting journalists from government repression. The project’s director, Carlos Huertas, explained that using AI allows them to bypass the escalating risks real reporters face in the country.
Why does it matter?
The Venezuelan government has been cracking down on journalists, protesters, and opposition figures amid a disputed election, with at least ten journalists arrested since mid-June, eight of whom remain imprisoned on severe charges. The crackdown is part of a broader effort to stifle dissent in response to the ongoing election dispute between President Nicolas Maduro and opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez. While Maduro, who has been in power since 2013, claims victory with the backing of the Supreme Court and electoral authority, the opposition argues that their candidate won by a large margin.
Protests over the election have resulted in 27 deaths and over 2,400 arrests. The situation has drawn international concern, with many questioning the election’s fairness and calling for the release of full vote tallies. Despite the government’s efforts to suppress dissent, the AI news anchors symbolise creative resistance, delivering news without putting human reporters at further risk.
Elon Musk’s Starlink has informed Brazil’s telecom regulator, Anatel, that it will not comply with a court order to block the social media platform X, also owned by Musk, until the freeze on its Brazilian bank accounts is lifted. The defiance follows a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the suspension of X due to its failure to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, a decision that also led to the freezing of Starlink’s accounts in the country.
Brazil’s Supreme Court is now facing tension as it deals with the standoff between Musk’s businesses and the nation’s legal system as a five-member court panel recently upheld the suspension of X, siding with Moraes and supporting the action necessary to combat misinformation and hate speech on the platform. The ruling has been backed by Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who emphasised that X’s content threatened democracy.
Starlink’s refusal to comply with the court’s order has put it at risk of sanctions from Anatel, which could include revoking its license to operate in Brazil. The regulator has warned that it is closely monitoring compliance among all telecom operators in the country and may take further action against Starlink. Musk has responded defiantly despite the legal pressures, criticising Moraes and threatening reciprocal actions against Brazilian assets.
Why does this matter?
The legal case represents the ongoing disputes between Musk and Brazilian authorities, which have intensified over the past few months. Critics of Moraes accuse him of using authoritarian methods to control political discourse, while supporters argue that his actions are essential for protecting democratic principles. As the situation escalates, the suspension of X remains in effect, although some users have found ways to bypass the ban using VPNs.
Moreover, Brazil is one of the most significant markets for X, with around 21.5 million users, making the outcome of this legal battle significant for Musk’s business interests and the broader debate on regulating social media and freedom of expression in the country.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasised on Friday that Elon Musk must abide by the rulings of Brazil’s Supreme Court amid rising tensions that could see the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shut down in the country. President Lula announced this after X failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to identify a legal representative in Brazil, a requirement under the country’s internet laws.
The dispute escalated when Musk labelled Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes a ‘dictator’ and accused President Lula of being the judge’s ‘lapdog.’ Lula responded by asserting that all foreign investors, regardless of wealth, are subject to Brazilian laws and the Constitution.
The potential shutdown of X could be enforced by ordering telecommunications companies to block the platform’s traffic. However, users could bypass the restriction using VPNs, allowing them to continue accessing the site.
In a related development, Brazil’s Supreme Court froze the local bank accounts of Musk’s satellite internet company, Starlink, reportedly due to the same issue of lacking a legal representative in the country. Musk responded by promising to keep providing Starlink’s services to remote areas of Brazil for free until the legal matter is resolved, stressing that many schools and hospitals depend on the service.
Despite the financial freeze, Musk also pledged continued support for the Brazilian military, which has warned that any disruption in Starlink’s services could negatively impact its operations.
It has not been that long since Elon Musk was hardly criticised by the British government for spreading extremist content and advocating for the freedom of speech on his platform. This freedom of speech has probably become a luxury few people can afford, especially on platforms whose owners are less committed to those principles while trying to comply with the requirements of governments worldwide. The British riots, where individuals were allegedly arrested for social media posts, further illustrate the complexity of regulating social media digital policies. While governments and like-minded people may argue that these actions are necessary to curb violent extremism and exacerbation of critical situations, others see them as a dangerous encroachment and undermining of free speech.
The line between expressing controversial opinions and inciting violence or allowing crime on social media platforms is often blurred, and the consequences of crossing it can be severe. However, let us look at a situation where someone is arrested for allegedly turning a blind eye to organised crime activities on his platform, as in the case of Telegram’s CEO.
Namely, Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder and CEO, became another symbol of resistance against government control over digital communications alongside Elon Musk. His arrest in Paris on 25 August 2024 sparked a global debate on the fine line between freedom of speech and the responsibilities that come with running a platform that allows for uncensored, encrypted communication. French authorities allegedly detained Durov based on an arrest warrant related to his involvement in a preliminary investigation and his unwillingness to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide. The investigation concerns Telegram’s alleged role in enabling a wide range of crimes due to insufficient moderation and lack of cooperation with law enforcement. The charges against him—allegations of enabling criminal activities such as child exploitation, drug trafficking, terrorism, and fraud, as well as refusing to cooperate with authorities —are severe. However, they also raise critical questions about the extent to which a platform owner can or should be held accountable for the actions of its users.
In 2011, Durov said the Russian government asked him to delete the accounts of anti-government people on his social media platform. He refused. After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, Durov refused to provide the Russian government with information about users involved in the event. pic.twitter.com/hqnijdiBJ5
Durov’s journey from Russia to France highlights the complex interplay between tech entrepreneurship and state control. He first made his mark in Russia, founding VKontakte, a platform that quickly became a refuge for political dissenters. His refusal to comply with Kremlin demands to hand over user data and sell the platform eventually forced him out of the country in 2014. Meanwhile, Durov launched Telegram in 2013, a messaging app focused on privacy and encryption, which has since become a tool for those seeking to avoid government surveillance. However, his commitment to privacy has put him at odds with various governments, leading to a life of constant movement across borders to evade legal and political challenges.
In France, Durov’s initially promising relationship with the government soured over time. Invited by President Emmanuel Macron in 2018 to consider moving Telegram to Paris, Durov even accepted French citizenship in 2021. However, the French government’s growing concerns about Telegram’s role in facilitating illegal activities, from terrorism to drug trafficking, led to increased scrutiny. The tension as we already know, culminated in Durov’s recent detention, which is part of a broader investigation into whether platforms like Telegram enable online criminality.
Durov’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates adds another layer of complexity. After leaving Russia, Durov based Telegram in the UAE, where he was granted citizenship and received significant financial backing. However, the UAE’s restrictive political environment and stringent digital controls have made this partnership a delicate one, with Durov carefully navigating the country’s security concerns while maintaining Telegram’s operations.
Pavel Durov left Russia when the government tried to control his social media company, Telegram. But in the end, it wasn’t Putin who arrested him for allowing the public to exercise free speech. It was a western country, a Biden administration ally and enthusiastic NATO member,… https://t.co/F83E9GbNHC
The USA, too, has exerted pressure on Durov. Despite repeated attempts by US authorities to enlist his cooperation in controlling Telegram, Durov has steadfastly resisted, reinforcing his reputation as a staunch defender of digital freedom. He recently told to Tucker Carlson in an interview that the FBI approached a Telegram engineer, attempting to secretly hire him to install a backdoor that would allow US intelligence agencies to spy on users. However, his refusal to collaborate with the FBI has only heightened his standing as a symbol of resistance against governmental overreach in the digital realm.
With such an intriguing biography of his controversial tech entrepreneurship, Durov’s arrest indeed gives us reasons for speculation. At the same time, it seems not just a simple legal dispute but a symbol of the growing diplomatic and legal tensions between governments and tech platforms over control of cyberspaces. His journey from Russia to his current predicament in France highlights a broader issue: the universal challenge of balancing free expression with national security.
Accordingly, Telegram, based in Dubai and widely used across Russia and the former Soviet Union, has faced scrutiny for its role in disseminating unfiltered content, especially during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with government demands, has consistently maintained that Telegram is a neutral platform committed to user privacy and free speech. Additionally, his multiple citizenships, including Russian (since the devolution in 1991, previously the Soviet Union from birth), Saint Kitts and Nevis (since 2013), French (since 2021), and UAE (since 2021), are only escalating tenseness between concerned governments pressing on French President Emmanuel Macron and asking for clarifications on the matter. Even Elon Musk confronted Emanuel Macron by responding directly to his post on X, claiming that ‘It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested’, as he described it as an attack on free speech.
It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested
Despite the unclear circumstances and vague official evidence justifying the arrest and court process, Durov will undoubtedly face the probe and confront the accusations under the prescribed laws concerning the case. Therefore, it would be preferable to look at the relevant laws and clarify which legal measures are coherent with the case.
The legal backdrop to Durov’s arrest is complex, involving both US and EU laws that govern digital platforms. However, Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, often called the ‘twenty-six words that created the internet,’ is the governing law that should be consulted and under which, among others, this case would be conducted. The law, in its essence, protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content as long as they act in good faith to remove unlawful material. This legal shield has allowed platforms like Telegram to flourish, offering robust encryption and a promise of privacy that appeals to millions of users worldwide. However, this immunity is not absolute. Section 230 does not protect against federal criminal liability, which means that if Telegram is found to have knowingly allowed illegal activities to increase without taking adequate steps to curb them, Durov could indeed be held liable.
In the EU context, the recently implemented Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes stricter obligations on digital platforms, particularly those with significant user bases. Although Telegram, with its 41 million users in the EU, falls short of the ‘very large online platforms’ (VLOP) category that would subject it to the most stringent DSA requirements, it would probably still be obligated to act against illegal content. The DSA emphasises transparency, accountability, and cooperation with law enforcement—a framework that contrasts sharply with Telegram’s ethos of privacy and minimal interference.
True, Brazil is controlled by a tyrannical dictator masquerading as a judge https://t.co/kkPfNRrBOh
Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has been embroiled in controversies over its role in child exploitation, but especially in spreading harmful content, from political misinformation to hate speech. On the other hand, Zuckerberg’s recent confession in an official letter that, in 2021, the White House and other Biden administration officials exerted considerable pressure on Meta to suppress certain COVID-19-related content, including humour and satire, adds fuel to the fire concerning the abuse of legal measures to stifle freedom of speech and excessive content moderation by government officials. Nevertheless, both Musk and Zuckerberg have had to strike a balance between maintaining a platform that allows for open dialogue and complying with legal requirements to prevent the spread of harmful content.
When you say you are committed to freedom of expression, you are lying. We have a letter from France that proves this, without a doubt.
We had to shutdown Rumble in France because you have NO committment to freedom of expression.
The story of Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, further complicates this narrative. His decision to leave the EU following Durov’s arrest underscores the growing unease among tech leaders about the increasing regulatory pressures of the EU. Pavlovski’s departure can be seen as a preemptive move to avoid the legal and financial risks of operating in a jurisdiction that tightens its grip on digital platforms. It also reflects a broader trend of tech companies seeking more favourable regulatory environments, often at the expense of user rights and freedoms.
All these controversial examples bring us to the heart of this debate: where to draw the line between free speech and harm prevention. Encrypted platforms like Telegram offer unparalleled privacy but pose significant challenges for law enforcement. The potential for these platforms to be used by criminals and extremists cannot be ignored. However, the solution is more complex. Overzealous regulation risks stifling free expression and driving users to even more secretive and unregulated corners of the internet.
Pavel Durov’s case is a microcosm of the larger global struggle over digital rights. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: Do platforms like Telegram have a responsibility to monitor and control the content shared by their users, even at the cost of privacy? Should governments have the power to compel these platforms to act, or does this represent an unacceptable intrusion into the private sphere? Should social media companies that monetise content on their platforms be held responsible for the content they allow? And ultimately, how do we find the balance in the digital world we live in to optimally combine privacy and security in our society?
These questions will only become more pressing as we watch Durov’s and similar legal cases unfold. The outcome of his case could set a precedent that shapes the future of digital communication, influencing not just Telegram but all platforms that value user privacy and free speech. Either way, Durov’s case also highlights the inherent conflict between cyberspace and real space. There was once a concept that the online world—the domain of bits, bytes, and endless data streams—existed apart from the physical reality we live in. In the early days of the internet, this virtual space seemed like an expansive, unregulated frontier where the laws of the physical world did not necessarily apply. However, cyberspace was never a separate entity; rather, it was an extension, a layer added to the world we already knew. Therefore, the concept of punishment in the digital world has always been, and still is, rooted in the physical world. Those held responsible for crimes or who commit crimes online are not confined to a virtual jail; they are subject to controversies in the real world and legal systems, courts, and prisons.
Elon Musk’s social media platform X faces a critical showdown with Brazil’s Supreme Court, which could soon order the platform shutdown in the country. The legal battle escalated after X missed a deadline to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, a requirement under local law. The conflict has deepened tensions between Musk and Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, whom Musk accused of engaging in censorship.
True, Brazil is controlled by a tyrannical dictator masquerading as a judge https://t.co/kkPfNRrBOh
Earlier this month, the Brazilian Supreme Court froze the bank accounts of Musk’s Starlink satellite internet company as part of a broader dispute over X’s non-compliance with court orders. The fines, reportedly amounting to over $3.6 million, stem from X’s failure to provide certain documents requested by the court. In response, Musk took to X to denounce the court’s actions, labelling Moraes as an ‘evil dictator’ and announcing that SpaceX would offer free internet service to Brazilian users until the matter is resolved.
The heart of the dispute lies in Judge Moraes’ orders to block accounts on X that are accused of spreading misinformation, particularly those linked to former President Jair Bolsonaro supporters. Musk has publicly criticised these orders as censorship, arguing that they violate free speech. Despite initial resistance, X eventually agreed to comply with the court’s demands but cited operational issues for its incomplete compliance.
This legal struggle has jeopardised X’s future in Brazil, one of its largest markets. The platform had already announced plans to close its operations in the country, blaming Moraes’ censorship orders for the decision. Meanwhile, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has backed Moraes’ stance, emphasising the importance of respecting local laws and protecting private information.
As the battle unfolds, Brazilian users of X have reacted with a mix of humour and concern, creating memes and debating the implications of the court’s actions on free speech. The situation remains tense, with the potential shutdown of X in Brazil looming, highlighting the broader conflict between digital platforms and governmental control.
Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed in a recent letter that senior Biden administration officials pressured his company to censor COVID-19 content during the pandemic. The letter, sent on 26 August to the US House Judiciary Committee, reveals Zuckerberg’s regret over not publicly addressing this pressure sooner and his acknowledgement of questionable content removal decisions made by Meta.
Zuckerberg detailed in the letter that, in 2021, the White House and other Biden administration officials exerted considerable pressure on Meta to suppress certain COVID-19-related content, including humour and satire. According to Zuckerberg, this pressure led to frustration when Meta did not fully comply.
The letter, which the Judiciary Committee on Facebook shared, highlights Zuckerberg’s criticism of the government’s actions. He expressed regret for not being more vocal about the situation and reflected on the decisions made with the benefit of hindsight.
Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things:
1. Biden-Harris Admin "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans.
2. Facebook censored Americans.
3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) August 26, 2024
The White House and Meta have not commented on the matter outside regular business hours. The Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, has labelled the letter a ‘big win for free speech,’ noting Zuckerberg’s admission that Facebook censored some content.
Additionally, Zuckerberg announced that he would refrain from contributing to electoral infrastructure for the upcoming presidential election. The approach follows his controversial $400 million donation in 2020 through his Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which faced criticism and legal challenges from some groups who perceived it as partisan.
