Negative, representatives do not control their clients - they are the middleman that can explain process and likely result, but they are not the clients.
I'm sorry, but you must be confusing what a legal representative is, or we are getting lost in translation here.
The legal rep for Twitter in Brazil was not just some Lawyer defending Twitter in court. They were effectively the Owner and President of the Twitter subsidiary in Brazil, and as such are legally responsible for any and all dealings of the company in the country.
One of the principles Brazilian Law is based off is something called "Principle of Inertia" (which I can't find a proper translation since I keep stumbling into sixth grade Physics).
It reasons that the Juditiary Power will must not and does not have to act unless provoked to do so.
In practice, this means that while the law states that platforms operating in Brazil need a legal representative, that is not required or enforced until there's a reason to. In this case, it could be if anyone ever sues Bluesky, if they collect payments in local currency or transfer money in/out of the country, or if they provide a service that is regulated such as medical or financial advice.
So far, none of these have happened, or have not happened in a scale or frequency that has prompted action.
I expect that as people migrate over to Bluesky they will eventually be required to provide a representative or follow the fate of Twitter.
No, that comes down to shooting the messenger because you don't like what he said. This is usually done by 'the bad guys' and this seems to be the case in Brazil as well.
