Before Elon acquired Twitter, the platform enforced an one-sided policy of censoring right-wing points of view. It even started actively shielding the left from any criticism, such as when the Hunter Biden Laptop story was blatantly censored so as to not affect Joe Biden's presidential campaign negatively.
Now, he lets both sides of the political spectrum participate in the debate without censorship. Are you trying to say things got worse because of this?
ISPs shall block, X users shall use VPN to circumvent.
No minimally serious country destroys the legal separation between different companies so brazenly. If it is for such a thing to happen, it's only on exceptional circunstances, and only after the a full lawsuit concludes its natural course, giving all affected parties the right to offer their defenses. Anything far from these basic civilizational principles is no more than a whim from a dictator's inflated ego.
There are legal ways for the judicial system to recover assets. Going after other companies, even if Musk has 40% stake on Starlink, is madness. One thing does not justify the other.
Fighting crime is desirable, but within the limits of the law:
Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework
Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the internet application provider may only be held civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, it fails to take steps to, within the scope and technical limits of its service and within the specified timeframe, make the content identified as infringing unavailable, except for legal provisions to the contrary.
§ 1º The court order referred to in the caput must contain, under penalty of nullity, clear and specific identification of the content identified as infringing, which allows the unequivocal location of the material.
Note that the legislator took the trouble to say right at the beginning that the intention is to prevent censorship. Few laws are written in such detail as to reinforce their guiding principles in the middle of the provisions. If the legislator went to this trouble, it is because the intention of avoiding censorship is fundamental to this law. If judges are ignoring the law, they're ignoring the will of the people.
In other words: the judge issued an order that affects everyone, not only the parties involved in the judicial process, and without the need for each affected individual to be formally notified so he/she can know how to avoid being fined. So, he basically legislated by himself. No wonder people are saying he's a dictator.