I, unlike Musk, don't have a team of lawyers though. Its common for people to attribute business decisions directly to Musk, but do we actually know he was the one and only person at Twitter involved in this decision?

Seems like weak tea.

Musk et al bent over backwards for India and Turkey and suddenly gained principles in Brazil?

A Supreme Court Justice who rules on constitional law is fairly definitive, now even more so .. in India and Turkey X-itter sided with the the ruling conservative right wing party in power, in Brazil X-itter sided with the losing conservative right wing party that spread election denial propaganda.

There's a clear pattern.

> Musk et al bent over backwards for India and Turkey and suddenly gained principles in Brazil?

The question isn't what morals the company decides to stand on other than the moral that they will only comply with government requests and court rulings that are legal under that jurisdiction's laws.

I don't know details of Turkish or Indian law, but I do generally understand their governments to be more oppressive than the US. It seems plausible that the requests made by those governments were legal there, as opposed to the Brazilian request that Twitter is claiming not to be legal there.

Supreme Court justices are in fact fallible. There have been a handful of decisions coming out of SCOTUS that many have been extremely unhappy with to the point of claiming the rulings were unlawful or unconstitutional. Is it impossible that the Brazilian judge made a request/demand and threat that isn't actually lawful?