Social network X (formerly Twitter) said on Saturday it would shut down its operations in Brazil “with immediate effect” due to what it called “censorship orders” issued by Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes.
AXE, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, alleges that Moraes secretly threatened one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil with arrest if he did not comply with court orders to remove certain content from his platform.
The social media giant published images of a document allegedly signed by Moraes, which states that a daily fine of 20,000 Brazilian reals (around 3,313 euros) and an arrest decree will be imposed against X actress, Rachel Nova Conceição, if the platform does not comply with its requests.
To protect our security Staff“We have made the decision to close our operations in Brazil with immediate effect,” X announced.
The Federal Supreme Court, where Moraes sits, told Reuters it would not comment on the matter and would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the document shared on social network X.
Despite the closure of offices, the service remains available to residents of Brazil, the platform said Saturday.
Earlier this year, Moraes ordered X to block certain accounts while investigating so-called “digital militias” accused of spreading fake news and hate messages during the government of the former right-wing president. Jair Bolsonaro.
Moraes opened an investigation into the billionaire earlier this year after Musk said he would reactivate accounts on the X network that a judge had ordered blocked. Musk has called Moraes’s decisions regarding X “unconstitutional.”
After Musk’s objections, X representatives backed down and told the Federal Supreme Court that the social media giant would comply with the court’s rulings.
In April, lawyers representing X in Brazil told the Supreme Federal Court that “operational failures” allowed banned users to continue to be active on the platform, after Moraes requested the order.
In a post on X on Saturday, Musk called Moraes “a complete disgrace to justice,” and said the company could not agree to “the judge’s secret oversight and demands for private information.”
