They’ve been calling it for basically the last whole war.

In fact, it’s been done pretty masterfully by not making one huge step, but small steps where no single one would force him to do something, but just over time each small step eventually gets to the point where he said he would have to do something…and hasn’t.

Sounds like something an idiot would brag about.

I think it’s fair to call The Useful Idiot a victim.

We need more people like you.

It certainly wouldn’t be surprising.

So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey

You’ve got it backwards. Right in the article, it notes “The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.” The escalation of Starlink not complying comes from that, not the other way around.

ut the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in

Again, seemingly backwards. It was the government of Brazil that used their “intertwined nature” to freeze Starlink accounts, and Musk has, in turned, used that “intertwine nature” as leverage.

To be clear, I hate defending Musk, but I don’t see why it makes sense to freeze Startlink accounts if it’s X that hasn’t paid the fines. Can they go after any company that he owns stock in? Can they start seizing Teslas? How about MS infrastructure, if he holds some ownership in that company too? I’m just not sure the government of Brazil is on the right side of this, and not simply using their power to punish Musk. If people said “I don’t really care and I’m glad they are holding his feet to the fire” that would be one thing, but people are arguing that it’s actually Musk who is doing all of this, while it appears that it’s actually the Brazilian government that “intertwined” them and Musk just responding in kind.

You are.

Blatantly lying about what I’ve said just indicates to me that you have no interest in getting to the truth, so I won’t bother any further.

Nor did I say anyone was suing anyone. I was just drawing up an example of a case how they could go after both entities. In this case, it appears the fine was levied against X, and not Musk.

And no one is talking about “avoiding fines.” WTF are you even on about? We are talking about them seizing Starlink assets because of fines levied against X. Musk doesn’t even own a majority share of SpaceX (who owns starlink). You are confusing “the face of” with “the legal entity.”

You can limit liability by creating separate entities and this is absolutely the standard, at least in the US. You would have to be very ignorant, or have sought no outside counsel, if you have some kind of decently profitable business and haven’t done so. It’s the whole point of these legal structures, such as LLCs. I don’t know the particulars of the case, nor the particulars of Brazilian law, so I don’t really know if it the case here.

That being said, speaking from an only slightly informed US perspective, if they are suing Musk himself, then yes they can absolutely go after his assets, which would include ownership in Starlink and X. However, if they fined X, it wouldn’t even remotely be a stretch that they do not have the legal authority to lock down Starlink accounts, as they are two separate entities that are presumably linked only by common figurehead.

The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.

The issue of freezing star link accounts predates this shut down and was the result of some issue with x.

I’ve got no love for musk, but if the government is going after starlink because they have issues with x, it’s hard for me to disagree with him when he calls this dictator like. And thus it’s hard for me to fault him for using it as leverage.

He’s arguing that it’s illegal because they are separate entities.

Yup. My strategy has long been:

1. Put game in wishlist.
2. Wait for it to drop to under 20$ (or close)
3. Profit. Well maybe not profit, but save money.

We need clear good guys and bad guys, so if the IDF is the bad guys (which they certainly are) well that means Hamas must be the good guys (which they certainly are not) and thus this has to be some noble effort.

Intentionally trying to capsizing migrants so they drown isn’t the same as “being called racist”.

Did we watch the same video? They could have easily hit them multiple times before the collision that saying they intentionally did so makes no sense. Adding in that they were intentionally trying to drown them is also ridiculously presumptuous.

It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation

Notice the language here, he says “the reporting” was not disinformation, nothing about whether the laptop itself was part of any disinformation campaign. You’ve been very careful with your language, it’s surprising that you can’t see this deliberate use of language to sidestep any actual statement about the the laptop itself.

The damaging ones have.

So we agree that they haven’t all been verified, exposing what was obfuscated in your claim.

And why have you abandoned the central theme of your claim that the FBI pressured them about the laptop? Again it appears you believe zuck when he kind of says something that confirms your point, but when he says something that contradicts it, you just ignore it.

See Zuckerberg’s statement

I’m not even sure he said what you’re claiming he said, but regardless are we really saying “well, zuckerberg said it must be true!”? Please tell me we’re not there.

E-mails have been independently verified. The story is independent of Giuliani.

Your language is so tricky. I wonder why. Yes, some emails have been verified. But not all.

There is absolutely no evidence of Russian involvement between the point that the laptop was submitted for repair in April 2019 and the FBI subpoenaing the laptop in December 2019.

Again, tricky language. There are questions about how it got there at all, and there are chain of custody questions too. So sure, if they planted it, there is no evidence of their involvement after doing so.

The FBI suggesting to facebook and twitter that the laptop was Russian Propaganda is pure misinformation.

Except, again, according to the article you have posted and referenced multiple times, Zuckerberg says the FBI never said anything about the laptop. You seem to be picking and choosing when to believe Zuckerberg, conveniently when it suits your conclusion.

We are discussing Facebook censoring (incorrectly identified) misinformation.

Again, you’ve yet to actually establish that this is the case.

The response letter of ex spies had nothing do to with Facebook’s actions, which were actually based on misleading FBI warnings.

Again, it explains how even if the laptop is real, that it could still be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make this go away.

You want me to prove a negative?

No, you’ve repeatedly claimed we know it’s not Russia disinformation, which is a positive assertion.

I made no such claim.

It’s right in your timeline.

None of which were true, because it has been proven in court via serial numbers that the laptop is genuine.

Holy shit I can’t believe you still haven’t read the letter. Amazing.

Your letter is not relevant.

Absolutely relevant because it explains how the laptop could be real and that it is still part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Of course the public can only respond to a story after it has been released.

No, the Facebook content team were duped into connecting the laptop story to Russian propaganda

Again, at no point have you established as a fact that it was not Russian propaganda. But that sentence was meant to be taken as a whole, contradicting your claim that the public misconception about it was due to FBI planting the seeds.

OK. I’d love to hear you arguing this.

Lol I gave you a letter of a bunch of intelligence officially pointing out how it has the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. I don’t I know what the truth is, you’re the one maintaining you know for sure it is not, without providing any evidence other than “the laptop is his” which we agree is not in dispute, but leaves a ton of other questions opened.

Again, read the fucking letter.

FBI does not reveal that there is no “Russian Propaganda” related to that story.

You still havent proven this. Did you read the letter i posted? This is where the whole “Russian disinformation” public perception comes from, not from some questionable timeline where the FBI plants some vague seeds and the public is smart enough to make the connection.

And this is the point. They warned Facebook about the disinformation, and Facebook saw that the laptop fit the pattern. Maybe this is because it was Russian disinformation, which is why the FBI never corrected it. Although, there are more reasons why the FBI wouldn’t hop in, such as it’s not their job to correct public opinion.

From your link:

He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it “fit that pattern”.

Directly contradicting your point. Yet you used it as evidence of your point. Can you answer me why one would cite a article that contradicts their point by cherry picking part of it that doesn’t contradict their point?

Although, let’s also laugh at the absurdity of claiming that because Zuckerberg said it on the joe Rogan show…well, that means it’s absolutely true. Lol

But to answer your question, most people when they whine about people “lying” about the laptop being Russian propaganda are referring to the warning letter by ex spies:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000