The president of the (Supreme Federal Court), stated this Wednesday (18) that the , whose rules are being judged in court, was designed before the increase in the impact of fake news.
The Supreme Court judges whether the current Marco Civil rule on platform liability is constitutional. Article 19 of the framework, in force, defines that the company can only be held civilly liable after failing to comply with a court decision to remove content.
“The Marco Civil was conceived at a time when believing in network neutrality, of , was what was imagined. And we still didn’t have the dimension in 2014 of what would come ahead and the magnitude of the negative impact that disinformation would bring to the humanity,” he said.
In this fifth session focused on the topic, which started in November on rules to be followed by social networks.
“Today, we all know and the platforms themselves recognize episodes of manipulation during tragedies such as the one in Rio Grande do Sul with the floods, epidemics such as Covid-19, in which an extremely malicious disinformation industry emerges that compromises life or people’s integrity.”
The minister also cited the United States elections, the January 8 attacks and Brexit as historical episodes in which fake news encouraged manipulation and was appropriated by “violent actors”.
“From then on, the perception of platforms is no longer just as intermediaries, as owners of the avenues through which information circulates, they act intensely in the dissemination and amplification of their content.”
“Sensationalism and offense bring much more engagement than balanced speech, the search for the truth possible in an open and democratic society. Because hate and lies bring more engagement, there is a perverse incentive for the spread of hate and lies, because the The goal for the algorithm is engagement. The algorithm is completely amoral,” he said.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
