The Brazilian Supreme Court has suspended the operation of the social network X (Twitter) in the country, G1 reports.
Judge Alejandro Moraes The company made this decision after X failed to comply with the requirement to appoint a new legal representative in the country. Brazil will also introduce fines of 50,000 Brazilian reals ($8,900) for using a social network through a VPN.
The court ordered the Brazilian Communications Agency (ANATEL) to block X within the country within 24 hours. Apple and Google were given five days to remove the social networking app from their stores.
On August 28, Moraes gave X 24 hours to appoint a legal representative in the country, otherwise he threatened to block her from the country. This deadline expired on the evening of August 29. The social network refused to obey “illegal orders.”
“Following the repeated and deliberate failure to comply with court orders and the non-payment of fines imposed, as well as attempts to disobey Brazilian laws and the judiciary, an atmosphere of total impunity and lawlessness has been created on Brazilian social media, including during the 2024 municipal elections,” – said the judge.
He accused X of “massively spreading hate and racist remarks” and interfering in elections.
The court also ordered X to pay fines imposed for refusing to block accounts for “falsifications.” We are talking about 18 million reais (3.2 million dollars).
Owner X Elon Musk In response to Moraes’ ultimatum, he called him “an evil dictator disguised as a judge.”
“They are closing the number one source of truth in Brazil” – said Musk.
On August 17, X announced that it would cease operations in Brazil. Prior to this, the court ordered it to block several accounts for “falsifications.” The social network initially complied with the requirements, but then Musk announced that the accounts would be unblocked. Moraes launched an investigation against the businessman for obstructing the court’s activities and threatened to fine him $20,000 a day until the accounts were blocked. Musk accused the judge of “aggressive censorship,” RBC recalls.
