Supports the proposal to include serious crimes, child exploitation and terrorism in the exceptions of article 19, Sheet The president of the company in Brazil, Fábio Coelho.
Thus, platforms could be liable for damages due to content not removed after extrajudicial notification, not just after a court order.
The idea is aligned with those under discussion in the (Federal Supreme Court).
Rabbit warns, however, to the “unwanted consequences” if there is. “Depending on how this update in Article 19, this can make us a little less participants in all discussions that occur in Brazil and lead us to remove more content in the country.”
Why Google decided to participate in Conar [conselho de autorregulação publicitária]?
The first platform that approached Conar was Google. We made this approach very carefully, understanding that self -regulation depends on the concert of people at the table. Sérgio Pompilio [presidente do Conar] made a renovation [na governança da entidade]which will allow us to have a greater participation in the development of digital market practices guidelines.
The company’s ad policy is fully aligned with Conar’s Code of Ethics. It is a new stage of consolidating a system that serves to promote more ethical advertising. Brazil is a big market for Google, we do not shy away from our responsibility as a leader in the digital market.
You have been negotiating this participation in Conar for a long time. But precisely now the Supreme Court discusses Marco Civil and one of the topics in which there is consensus is before judicial or extrajudicial notification. How do you see this idea?
As you observed yourself, we are arguing with Conar for a long time. It is not an assaulted decision that has been made now. Regarding article 19 [do Marco Civil da ]although there is a majority formation [para mudança]there is no final position yet.
There is an opportunity to improve the balance between freedom of expression and liability, but we expect to preserve a fundamental principle: who should decide what is removed and what is not removed is justice and not the platforms. An expansion of article 19, with more elements being placed [além de nudez não consentida e violação de direitos autorais, outros temas passariam a gerar responsabilidade após notificação extrajudicial, sem necessidade de ordem judicial]it is possible.
Our group was in dialogue with ministers of the Supreme, we are not against this change. We support the improvements that can occur as expanding exceptions to extrajudicial removals in case of severe crime, child exploitation, terrorism. But with the necessary care not to turn this into a tool that can be contrary to access to information, investigative journalism, mood.
What would be the consequences of making the platforms responsible for various types of content even before a court order or extrajudicial [denúncia de usuário]?
An unwanted consequence would be the platform preventively to make a much greater removal of content. It has a multitude of cases where we, without a court order, does not remove, because it considers that the content must be of public knowledge. We would consider much more a removal.
Among all the topics being discussed in the Supreme Court, which are the most worrying of your point of view?
For me it is access to information. When we arrived in the past electoral process, what happened? A number of content removal requirements, real -time libraries were made. Were such strict demands that we decided not to participate in the electoral process [Google descontinuou a venda de anúncios eleitorais na plataforma após resolução do TSE com regras de transparência].
Under the conditions that were placed, it was unfeasible for us to participate. This is the type of condition that may not be ideal for the country. You have a company like Google not participating in the commercial electoral process.
This will happen again next year [na campanha eleitoral presidencial de 2026]?
If the rules are the same, the answer is yes. I didn’t want to connect this with this moment. But it only shows that, under extreme conditions, you can’t participate.
Just as you vetoed political announcements in 2024, because you considered the rules made it impossible, there are themes the regime of responsibility that can make Google’s performance restrict or restrict?
I would not say unfeasible. Depending on how this update in Article 19, this can make us a little less participants in all discussions that occur in Brazil and lead us to remove more content in the country. If you define this as restricting, it is a small restriction, no doubt. I wouldn’t say unfeasible, because I don’t think so, but it depends on what’s coming.
We have been in Brazil for 20 years, we have a huge performance. Let’s open on the IPT [Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas]on the Side of the USP School of Engineering and Mathematics, an office focused on artificial intelligence. All our interactions with public agencies, the Supreme, with the ministers, have been extremely healthy.
They will take stock of all points of view to reach a reasonable solution, and we will evaluate what are the impacts it has for our business. We want to help influence this [a regulação] Don’t be bad for Brazil.
Bill 2,338 on Artificial Intelligence, which has been approved in the Senate and is under discussion in the House, provides for copyright payment for data used to train AI models. How do you see this?
We believe you have to remunerate some content partners yes, but not necessarily with copyright. Public subject copyright makes no sense, but [faz sentido remunerar] Quality information with partners with which we will negotiate.
Nowadays, we have content agreement with 185 journalistic companies. We pay these companies to have a model where quality content is valued within our platforms. Copyright’s definition for artificial intelligence is still under development. It is better for me not to give you an answer about it now, while we are working with the House and the Senate so that this business can work as best as possible for Brazil.
