This post is also available in: English Português
Billionaire Elon Musk has been in a feud with Brazil’s Supreme Court, after Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the blocking of accounts on Musk’s social media site X that are accused of spreading fake news. Musk has accused the court of blocking free speech, and Moraes launched an investigation of Musk over possible obstruction of justice. Has Moraes gone too far in seeking to purge social media of misinformation, or are his orders warranted? What responsibility do U.S. tech companies have to help stop the spread of misinformation in Latin America? Would the region’s democracies benefit or suffer from more stringent regulation on foreign owned social media sites?
Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil’s ambassador to the United States: “Brazil and the United States are consolidated democracies that, in recent years, have had to cope with the rise of movements willing to subvert the rule of law and society’s peaceful coexistence through disinformation and even force. The inherent violence of these movements was on full display in the United States on January 6, 2021, and in Brazil on January 8, 2023, when attempts were made to forcibly deny the people of Brazil and the United States the legitimate right to choose their representatives. The request by Brazil’s judiciary to suspend accounts on the X platform is part of the ongoing investigation into the events of Jan. 8. The request for suspension was made in accordance with the law, and the principles of legality and due process were observed. Foreign companies are always welcome in Brazil, and it is their duty to understand and respect Brazilian society, institutions and laws. The strength of Brazil’s democracy, in which freedom of expression and the rule of law prevail, guarantees that everyone—citizens and businesses, Brazilians and foreigners residing or having interests in Brazil—can and should participate in the national public dialogue, observing the limits established under laws that are debated, approved and enforced by the democratic state in force in Brazil.”
Alfredo Attié, justice at the Supreme Court of São Paulo and president and full fellow of the São Paulo Law Academy: “There is a conflict, due to the development of information and communication technologies, between the traditional public space and the not so brave new world of social networks. The traditional public space over time has been subject to regulations so that debate does not exceed certain limits. Similarly, the virtual space cannot be shielded from legal proceedings. That limit prevents it from becoming an instrument of symbolic violence that violates human rights. The decisions of Brazil’s supreme court, voiced by Judge Moraes, seek to establish that regulation, even if it is temporary and indirect. The greatest benefit for Latin American democracies—which, like other democracies around the world, are under attack—would come from internationally coordinated legislation. I suggest that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law launch the debate in order to construct a standard law that all countries could adopt.”
Geusseppe Gonzalez, head for Latin America at Access Partnership: “Brazilian authorities have been advocating for regulations to control fake news and misinformation for some time (even before Lula was in office). Hence, conversations regarding freedom of speech and the role of digital platforms such as X arose. However, this has led to a number of conversations where interested parties have expressed concerns about potential undesired harms to online freedom of speech and the use of social media and digital platforms. Within this context, what matters for Brazil and Latin America is the realization that public confrontations do not address broader policy issues related to freedom of speech, protection of foreign investment and digital inclusion. Instead, a more sensible and pragmatic approach is needed to shape the rules that govern social media and Internet use, including the motivations of national and international stakeholders. As ambiguity only fosters an uncertain environment, Musk and Moraes should consider a more sensible approach to their public encounters, as user protection could be overlooked. Finally, other jurisdictions can take inspiration from this confrontation, so the more reasonable the outcome, the better for the region, as the integrity of information is vital for Latin America’s democracy and development.”
Nathalia Foditsch, São Paulo-based access and connectivity specialist: “As debate rages about Elon Musk’s role in Brazil’s information space, we must recognize the growing influence he has not only in platform governance but also in the technology many people use to get online. Musk is the owner of Starlink—the market leader in Low Earth Orbit satellite Internet. The company has tripled its footprint in Brazil in the past year, expanding quickly without the heavy work of digging trenches and laying fiber. For all its advantages, the technology has its downsides too. There’s the high costs and limited capacity. But more important still is the tremendous power Musk has to control who can and can’t use this essential infrastructure. If we want to build communications tools that work in the interests of the communities they serve, our priority should be investing in locally owned and controlled networks—not giving up power to far flung billionaires.”
The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue’s Corporate Program and others by subscription.
