On Aug. 30, 2024, Brazil’s Supreme Court, led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ordered the suspension of X in the country. This decision followed a prolonged legal battle with Elon Musk, the owner of X, who had repeatedly refused to comply with court orders to block certain accounts from spreading misinformation. The court mandated that X appoint a local legal representative and pay substantial fines, which Musk initially resisted. To bypass the ban, X made a technical change to how it routes its internet traffic, enabling the site to evade the digital roadblocks set up by Brazilian internet providers.

X’s solution relied on Cloudflare, a major internet infrastructure provider based in San Francisco, to deliver its site in Brazil. Cloudflare helps route traffic for millions of websites, so blocking it in Brazil would have significant consequences for internet users across the nation of 200 million. X described this move as an “inadvertent” consequence of changing network providers, but it was perceived by many, including Brazil’s telecom regulatory agency Anatel, as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court’s order. Anatel responded by working with Cloudflare to isolate X’s traffic, ensuring the ban was reinstated and maintained.

The situation escalated when SpaceX’s Starlink, another company owned by Musk, became involved. Starlink provides satellite internet service and has gained significant popularity in Brazil with more than 250,000 customers. Justice Moraes froze the bank accounts of Starlink to try to collect USD 3 million in fines he had levied against X. Starlink initially said that it planned to fight the order and would make its service free in Brazil if necessary. It also argued that the fines imposed on X were unconstitutional and that their assets had been unfairly frozen. However, Starlink ultimately complied when faced with the threat of having its license revoked and additional fines imposed.

This incident underscores the critical role that telecom companies play in enforcing internet censorship. Governments, courts, and administrative bodies are becoming more demanding of compliance with local requirements. Some tech giants do their best to comply with local laws to avoid being shut out of markets. They hire more content moderators and issue statements about following local regulations. However, others, like Musk and Telegram’s owner Pavel Durov, are more willing to stand their ground in such debates and use their power to challenge legislative orders. Nevertheless, governments and courts have managed to maintain the upper hand by obliging not only platforms but also telcos to block access to certain content.

Ultimately, when courts or administrative bodies issue orders to block access to certain websites or platforms, it is the telecom firms that must implement these technical measures. Telecom operators’ networks serve only as conduits for accessing content, and they do not have editorial control over the content and services flowing through their networks. At the same time, governments do not forget that such networks are still subject to strict local regulations that, when enforced properly, cannot be bypassed.

Telcos often face significant technical and ethical challenges in this regard. Technically, they must ensure the blocking measures are effective and do not inadvertently disrupt other services. Sometimes, they have to adopt complex technical measures to comply with legal orders, as seen in Anatel’s response to X’s attempt to circumvent the ban. Ethically, they must navigate the fine line between complying with legal requirements and respecting their customers’ rights. Even if telecom companies may not fight as hard for the availability of third-party content, they could still face backlash from end users who view such bans as infringements on their freedom of expression. This balancing act is further complicated by the global nature of the internet, where actions taken in one country can have far-reaching implications.

This article was first published in the Budapest Business Journal print issue of November 4, 2024.