Connect with us

Business

Brazilian judge orders complete ban of Elon Musk’s X

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

Notorious left-wing Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has instructed the government to block access to X. Elon Musk condemned the ruling for ‘crushing the people’s right to free speech.’

BRASILIA, BRAZIL – OCTOBER 30: President of Superior Electoral Tribunal (TSE) Alexandre De Moraes talks during a press conference on October 30, 2022 in Brasilia, Brazil. Brazilians vote for president again after neither Lula or Bolsonaro reached enough support to win in the first round. (Photo by Arthur Menescal/Getty Images 2022)

Notorious left-wing Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes is continuing his autocratic ways. 

In a 51-page decision handed down late Friday evening, de Moraes instructed the country’s National Telecommunications Agency to block access to social media website X within 24 hours.  

X had already announced on August 17 that it was shutting down its offices in the country to protect staffers from de Moraes’s wrath. At the same time, the company said that Brazilians could still download the app.   

In his ruling, de Moraes demanded that Apple and Google remove X from their app stores within five days. He also imposed a daily fine of up to approximately $8,800 on persons and companies that attempt to use it via a VPN address. 

The dictatorial decision comes amid a months-long legal dispute between de Moraes and X, which has refused to comply with what the company has deemed “illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”  

Socialist Brazilian president Lula da Silva said in a radio interview Friday, “Just because the guy [Musk] has a lot of money, doesn’t mean they can disrespect you. … Who does he think he is?” 

De Moraes took office as president of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) in March 2022 when he began to exert pressure on social media accounts supportive of conservative incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro in the lead-up to the presidential election. 

Investigative journalist and author Michael Shellenberger, who broke the story about de Moraes’s apparent election interference, said his censorship efforts are “an attack on the democratic process” and “if there ever is electoral fraud in Brazil, nobody will be allowed to talk about it, if de Moraes gets his way.”  

Shellenberger commented on the ban on X Saturday morning.  

The spat between Musk and de Moraes began in April, when Musk announced that he tried to force the platform to censor accounts via a court order. Musk defiantly said that he would not give in to the demands and called for the impeachment of the high-ranking judge, referring to him as “Brazil’s Darth Vader.” The feud has also resulted in the freezing of financial accounts of Musk’s internet provider Starlink in Brazil.

During a U.S. congressional hearing held in May, Shellenberger and Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski testified about the numerous anti-free speech policies that have been enacted in Brazil under Lula and de Moraes, whom one witness described as the “de facto dictator” of the country. 

De Moraes’s disturbing decision comes as Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was indicted in France on seemingly questionable charges that many have argued are entirely politically driven. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has remained largely undisturbed by lawsuits from Western governments.  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 5 hours ago

Landmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away

Focal Points / 5 hours ago

STUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”

Health / 7 hours ago

Tens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 23, 2025

By

logo

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Continue Reading

Trending

X