Elon Musk’s months-long dispute with Brazil’s Supreme Court has not ended well for the platform that he owns.
Over the weekend, Brazil decided to ban its citizens from accessing X (formerly known as Twitter) because Musk would not comply with a court order to name a legal representative for the social media network in the country.
Musk has engaged in a feud with Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes since April. The justice has been charged with tackling hate speech on social networks that he says is harming Brazil’s democracy.
The Brazil ban impacts around 40 million Brazilians who use X at least once a month, according to the research site Emarketer. That accounts for 7 per cent of its claimed 570 million users globally.
There are fines of $13,000 for anyone in Brazil who tries to access the app via a VPN.
Musk claims the ban is politically motivated and a victory for VPNs.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2024
The Telsa and SpaceX chief – who has publicly announced his support for Donald Trump in the US election race – has tried to use the Brazilian court decision to attack the Democrats, arguing that if the Democrats retained power under Kamala Harris, free speech would be “under threat”.
→ Brazil unlawfully suspends an American company.
→ Biden/Harris remain silent. Why?
→ Because their party opposes free speech and may have similar plans for America.
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) September 1, 2024
To B&T’s knowledge, the Democratic presidential candidate has not yet mentioned a policy about free speech.
Musk’s latest spat with authority follows a trend of attacking business and political leaders who do not share his views that X should be allowed to spread misinformation on his platform in the name of “free speech”, unless, of course, it doesn’t suit his personal agenda.
A tech editor at Mi3 found this out the hard way.
Since buying Twitter in late 2022, Musk sacked almost all of the people responsible for policing the platform from misinformation and hate speech in one fell swoop, leading to an advertiser boycott from large brands.
Media buyers have previously told this journalist that they can no longer recommend X as a ‘brand safe platform’ for advertisers. This is a view that has been widely held in the industry. The World Federation of Advertiser’s brand safety coalition, Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), previously recommended advertisers steer clear of X, which the platform challenged in court for being ‘anti-competitive’ and then claimed the disbanding of GARM (a not-for profit venture) as a victory.
Musk’s personal posts have also turned off senior marketers from investing in the platform, B&T understands.
These include calling one of the architects of the successful Thai cave rescue of twelve teenage boys a “paedophile”, and sharing conspiracy theories about Nancy Pelosi’s husband after he was violently attacked.
Telling advertisers who don’t spend money with X to “go fuck yourselves” also did not go down well, and Musk’s recent charm offensive at the Canes Lions Festival of Creativity, where he had a chat with WPP boss Mark Read, did not win over many new fans, B&T has been told.
In Australia, X successfully defeated an order by Australia’s online watchdog eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to extend an injunction to remove posts on X showing the violent attack of a priest.
While the tech billionaire has won court battles in different parts of the world, those who have observed the platform since Musk took over are not too surprised by Brazil’s latest action.
