The Guardian is a reputable, independent source. X is neither of those.
"The Brazilian supreme court has ordered that X be suspended in the country after the social media platform failed to meet a deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country."
"The dispute began in April, when Moraes ordered the suspension of dozens of accounts for allegedly spreading disinformation – a request Musk denounced as censorship." X, formerly known as Twitter, has been without a legal representative in Brazil since 17 August, when Musk announced that his company was shutting down its operations in the country “effective immediately” due to what it called “censorship orders” from Moraes. The service has remained available to users in the country.""
"Moraes’ April order to X to block some accounts stemmed from an investigation into “digital militias” who backed former president Jair Bolsonaro’s attempts to stay in power after his 2022 election defeat. After Musk refused to comply, the judge included him in his investigation."
"On Wednesday, Moraes gave the company 24 hours to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil – a requirement for foreign companies operating in the country – “under penalty of immediate suspension of the social network’s activities”."
The legal representative of a foreign company in Brazil is expected to be legally responsible for the actions of the company in Brazil. This seems to make sense as Brazil probably thinks having individuals be personally liable for company actions to improves alignment with local laws and gives Brazil more leverage over otherwise exceptionally powerful global organizations.
However my understanding of "Legal Representative" is the North American understanding. A lawyer who is representing the company and not liable for the companies actions (those would be the directors).
I think these articles would do well to add this clarification as threatening to in-prison, and freezing the accounts of a lawyer representing a client in court is wild.
Doing the same thing to a person with direct legal liability is a little more sane.
I suspect The Guardian and X's accounts are both correct and it comes down to the expectation of the Legal Representative in the Brazilian system.
