It will come by the STF the regulation of social networks in Brazil. As? No one still knows. The ministers formed a majority to hold social networks responsible for user publications. But the criteria will still be defined.
There are two monumental political impacts involved in this STF posture. The first has to do with the. The Legislature was unable to approve regulation for the matter beyond the one whose article 19 – which withdraw content after court decision – is what was judged unconstitutional by the Supreme. So the Supreme will do what the legislator did not do.
It is not yet known if this will be done with the, which is inferior in the political struggle on social networks – hence its strong interest in regulation. Regulation that cannot be confused with censorship, warn the providers.
That is: where is the line that determines content to be removed without committing censorship or restricting freedom of expression? Not even the STF knows – yet?
From this comes the second great political impact of the STF’s claim to put an order in the internet world. This discussion takes place in Brazil in a political context in which Supreme Court and Executive are seen as partners in a contract that aims to curb the action of political opponents. Therefore, far from such a consensus that several of the members of the Supreme speak.
Whatever the calculation or intention of the Supreme Ministers, this sensitive question of seems to be moving towards a set of confusing rules, difficult to apply. It’s bad without them, and few believe it will be better with them.
