What seemed like a victory for Brazilians towards a more politically fair country may ultimately become a nightmare in another chapter in the complex relationship between freedom of expression and governance in Brazil. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is clashing now with Mark Zuckerberg. Earlier this week the businessman claimed that freedom of expression has been curtailed by the ideological biases prevalent in Silicon Valley and announced the relocation of part of his team to Texas. The decision came as a surprise to advocates of free speech, reinforcing the perception that fact-checkers operate in a biased manner, particularly in Brazil.
In response, Minister Alexandre de Moraes stated that, as a member of the STF, he will not allow “hate speech”. During a ceremony in support of democracy, held on January 8, the minister highlighted that, for big techs to continue operating in Brazil, they must comply with “Brazilian legislation”. According to him, even before there was a statement from Meta’s CEO, there were already plans for censorship measures, which were framed as addressing “hate speech”, fascism, Nazism and other reprehensible practices.
The day after the businessman’s speech, the Attorney General of the Union, Jorge Messias, signaled his intention to move forward with the regulation of social networks, illustrating the attempt to transform it into a justification for imposing more censorship. This scenario inevitably represents a historic milestone for Brazil, especially because Meta’s social networks are the most used in the world. Regulation, however, is seen as a threat to the plurality of ideas, since it essentially proposes control over what can or cannot be published on personal platforms.
Fears are mounting that such regulation may be used as a tool to silence dissenting voices. While some government supporters accuse the opposition of disseminating fake news, critics argue that the numerous corruption and money laundering scandals involving the current president are more than sufficient to illustrate the country’s political reality without the need to fabricate facts. As a result, many view the regulation of social media as an attempt to reduce the impact of public criticism, especially in the context of an economic crisis characterized by the record devaluation of the real (BRL) in 2024, historical losses in state-owned companies, and one of the highest tax burdens in the world, with inadequate returns for taxpayers.
Meanwhile, Brazilian society watches this unfolding situation with apprehension. The prevailing perception is that government actions against freedom of expression face little effective resistance in a political environment where the opposition is often regarded as ineffective or opportunistic.
