Last week, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) for the content published by users on social networks. The understanding is by the interpretation of the constitutionality of article 19. To date, the vote is 7 to 1 in favor of the responsibility of the Big Techs. The only opposite vote was the minister.
According to data from, which monitors more than 100,000 public groups of WhatsApp and Telegram, the mentions of 141.5% in 48 hours of the trial have grown.
There were 154 mentions, every 100,000 messages exchanged, between June 9 and 10, and 372 between the 11th and 12th. The word “censorship” appeared in most of the most replicated messages, as well as expressions such as “freedom”, “dictatorship” and “end of democracy”.
In the right groups, the predominant narrative describes the judgment as an authoritarian advance, led by an STF that would be “legislating” instead of Congress.
Videos that were sent in the groups bring direct criticism of the performance of ministers and associations between the decision and foreign authoritarian models. The decision is described as part of a larger process of ideological control of the networks.
In May, after one to the podcast of Sheet “If she doesn’t know, who knows?” In which the first lady quoted the “Chinese model” of regulation, videos began to circulate in public messenger groups by pointing out a possible authoritarian turn from Brazil towards censorship.
One of the most widely used excerpts in the assemblies brings the first lady saying “there, if you don’t follow the rule, has arrest.” It served it to warm the theme of social networks.
Over the past week, one of the most circulated videos on the platform states that the president would have pressed the Supreme Court for social networking regulation, due to the oscillation in its popularity and the amount of criticism he and were suffering in the digital environment.
In this line, users argue that Brazil would be following in the same direction as and Venezuela and that freedom of expression would be at risk.
On the left, the interpretation of the STF’s decision was opposite. The decision was celebrated as a civilizing step.
Users of public messenger groups have argued that direct liability for platforms is a way to curb systematic attacks and preserve democratic debate in the online environment.
However, the manifestation in the leftist groups was low and punctual compared to the most right -wing groups.
The resumption of the trial was already expected, as it was interrupted in December because of a request for view of Minister André Mendonça, whose deadline ended in the last week of May.
In this sense, the warming of the theme on the right after the speech of Janja did not happen by chance, but with the purpose of feeding the narrative that Brazil is towards an authoritarian shift sponsored by Lula and the first lady, in collusion with other authoritarian leaders.
In social networks, the attempt by the right -wing groups of linking Lula to social control, censorship and authoritarianism is constant.
While on the one hand the STF’s decision to hold the platforms responsible can help mitigate the spread of these narratives, on the other hand, further feeds existing conspiracies.
For this reason, the situation demands from the government a strict follow -up so that this does not come to a communication crisis.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
