Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stated in an interview with CNN Brazil published on Monday that the world is not obligated to tolerate billionaire Elon Musk’s “far-right anything goes” agenda simply due to his immense wealth.

Following the suspension of Musk’s social media platform, X, in Brazil, Lula da Silva said, “The Brazilian justice system may have given an important signal that the world is not obliged to put up with Musk’s extreme right-wing anything goes just because he is rich.”

Not an isolated incident 

Lula da Silva's long-standing dispute with Elon Musk over issues of free speech, far-right accounts, and misinformation in Brazil continues to escalate. Over the weekend, Brazilians, including the president, bid farewell to X, with many users posting links to their profiles on alternative social media platforms.

Brazil represents a significant market for X, which has faced challenges with losing advertisers since Musk’s acquisition and renaming of the platform last year. Approximately 40 million Brazilians, about one-fifth of the population, use X at least once a month, according to market research group Emarketer.

The platform’s access was blocked after Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered its suspension nationwide due to Musk’s refusal to appoint a legal representative in the country.

Dive deeper

The court had earlier ordered the blocking of several X accounts as part of a broad investigation into the dissemination of misinformation and hate speech aimed at destabilizing Brazil’s democracy. The accounts previously suspended by the platform under Brazilian court orders include those of lawmakers linked to former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of threatening democratic integrity.

Musk, who claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” has consistently argued that these court actions constitute censorship. On Tuesday, Musk once again engaged in Brazilian politics by sharing a link on X to an upcoming demonstration described as a march for “freedom,” which protests judicial overreach and allegedly defends free speech.