A Freedom of expression is a different concept in different countries. The way each “digital government” deals with social networks dictates the future of the world. Who wins the battle for the domain of online?
Social networking platforms don’t care much about national borders. Let’s look at X, for example. Users are spread around the world, with over 600 million accounts. And each of these jurisdictions has its own laws.
But the interests of national regulatory efforts and those of predominantly US -based technology companies often do not align.
What you are preparing is a global struggle for the governance of digital platforms. And in this battle, US platforms are increasingly supported by US laws to challenge other nations regulations: Analysts Y call it in “Digital imperialism”.
A rumor in the technological jungle
The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between the Brazilian judicial power and the US -based social networking platforms.
Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit against the Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes againstcontesting your orders to suspend accounts on both platforms linked to misinformation campaigns in Brazil.
The cases exemplify a growing tendency in which US political and business actors try undermine the foreign regulatory authorityarguing that US national legislation and business protections must be precedence over sovereign policies globally.
From Business Lobbying to Lawfare
At the center of the discussion is Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian right -wing and fugitive Brazilian influencer who fled to the US in 2021 after Moraes ordered his pre -trial detention for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.
Dos Santos continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests were unanswered due to the allegations of the US authorities that the case involves issues of freedom of expression and No criminal offenses.
The process of Trump Media and Rumble tries to do two things. First, search frame the lawsuits of Brazil as censorship and not as inspection. And secondly, it seeks to portray the action of the Brazilian Court as a Territorial exaggeration.
Its position is that, as the target of the action was in the US, they are subject to the protection of US freedom of expression under the first amendment. The fact that the target of the ban is Brazilian and accused of spreading misinformation and hatred in Brazil should not, according to them, be important.
For now, US courts agree. At the end of February, a judge from Florida decided that the Rumble and Trump Media had not to fulfill the Brazilian order.
In Brazil, efforts to regulate media platforms have long faced opposition. Large technology companies – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence to lobby Against more rigorous regulation, often framing such policies as a threat to freedom of expression.
In 2020, the “False News Law”who sought to hold the platforms responsible for disseminating disinformation, came across a strong opposition from these companies.
Google and the goal launched campaigns of great visibility to oppose the bill, warning that it would “threaten freedom of expression” and “harm small businesses”: they were successful.
Mix of business and political power
The difference now is that the challenges are sketching the line between business and political power.
Trump Media was detained by 53% by the US President before it transferred his participation to a revocable Trust in December 2024. Elon Musk, the X -owned Freedom of Expression Freedom of Expression, is a member of the Trump administration.
A protection of freedom of expression in the US has been applied unevenly, Experts explain, allowing authorities to supply dissent in some cases and protect hate speech in others.
Defenders of freedom of expression in large technology companies and the US government are interpreting more extremely: that the arguments of American freedom of expression can be used to resist the regulation of other jurisdictions and Challenge foreign legal frameworks.
For example, in response to the European Union Digital Services Act, the president of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, appointed by Trump, expressed concern that the law could threaten the American principles of freedom of expression.
This argument could be acceptable if the same interpretation of freedom of expression – and their proper protections – were universally accepted. But no. THE Concept of freedom of expression varies between nations and regions.
Countries such as Brazil, Germany, France and others adopt what jurists refer to as an approach to freedom of expression based on proportionalitybalancing it with other fundamental rights such as human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.
The future of digital governance
The legal battle on platform regulation is not limited to the current battle between US and Brazil -based platforms. The European Union Digital Services Law and the UK Online Security Law are other examples of governments trying to affirm control over platforms that operate within their borders.
As such, the lawsuit of Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court marks a critical moment in global geopolitics.
US technological giants, such as the goal, are giving in to the winds of the Trump administration’s freedom of expression. Musk, the X owner, has supported far-right groups abroad.
This overlap between political priorities of social networking platforms And the political interests of the US administration opens a new era in the debate on deregulation, where US freedom absolutists are trying to establish legal precedents that may undermine the future of regulatory efforts in other nations.
