The social network X has been blocked in Brazil since Saturday 31 August, following a decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court. Internet users who connect via a virtual private network (VPN) face a fine of 50,000 reais (8,000 euros). At the root of this decision: a clash between the Brazilian justice system, which requested the blocking of seven accounts, and X, which preferred to close its office in the country in an attempt to evade the request. A clash that also manifests itself in a direct conflict between Alexandre de Moraes, judge of the Federal Supreme Court, and Elon Musk, who nicknamed the latter “Voldemort”, Harry Potter’s enemy in the saga of the same name.
However, since buying Twitter for around €45 billion at the end of 2022, Elon Musk has on multiple occasions agreed to block accounts on his social network at the request of the courts, or even directly after receiving an order from governments, without a court decision. In March 2023, Twitter blocked 122 accounts, including some belonging to opposition elected officials and Indian journalists, at the request of Narendra Modi’s government. In February 2024, the social network agreed to block an additional 42 accounts, as the country experienced a major farmers’ protest movement, while announcing that would challenge the decision before the courts.
In Turkey, in May 2023, the social network also agreed to block at least four accounts at the request of the government, in the midst of the presidential election campaign. Elon Musk, who usually presents himself as a staunch defender of freedom of expression, He then justified these blockades explaining that he had to choose between “slow down access to all of Twitter or limit access to just a few tweets.”
Beyond these two high-profile cases, Twitter, which has since become X, has generally responded more favorably than in the past to government requests since Elon Musk took over. An analysis by independent media Rest of the world He noted that in the six months following the acquisition, the social network had responded favourably to 80% of requests for information or deletion made by States, compared with 50% under the previous management. It is difficult to gauge how the situation has evolved since then: the company no longer publishes, as it used to, transparency reports detailing the requests sent to it and the fate it reserves for them.
You have 47.09% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
