Brazilian Officials Champion Social Media Regulation at Global Fact-Checking Summit
RIO DE JANEIRO – In a resounding call for greater accountability from social media platforms, three prominent Brazilian officials addressed the International Fact-Checking Network’s GlobalFact summit, emphasizing that regulating online misinformation is not an infringement on freedom of speech but a necessary step to protect democratic values. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, Superior Electoral Court President Cármen Lúcia, and Attorney General Jorge Messias, figures at the forefront of Brazil’s fight against disinformation, presented a united front, arguing that the digital realm should not be a lawless frontier. They addressed an audience of approximately 400 fact-checkers from around the globe, underscoring the urgency of the situation and the shared responsibility to combat the spread of harmful falsehoods.
Justice de Moraes, known for his leadership in the investigation into former President Jair Bolsonaro’s alleged disinformation network, framed the issue as a societal imperative. He questioned the status quo, asking whether society is content with the current state of social media and what legacy it will leave for future generations. Using powerful visuals, including footage of the January 8th attacks on government buildings in Brasília, he illustrated the real-world consequences of unchecked online misinformation. He argued that self-regulation by tech companies has demonstrably failed, highlighting the political, economic, and criminal motivations driving disinformation campaigns. Echoing Justice de Moraes, Attorney General Messias dismissed the notion of self-regulation as ineffective, emphasizing that the companies themselves, not the technology, must be held accountable.
President Lúcia drew a compelling analogy between regulating social media and establishing traffic laws. Just as freedom of movement on the road doesn’t give drivers license to endanger others, freedom of expression online shouldn’t grant individuals impunity to spread harmful falsehoods. This underlines the principle that rights come with responsibilities, a concept applicable both offline and online. She underscored that regulations are essential for ensuring public safety and maintaining order, drawing a parallel with the historical need for legislation to govern the use of automobiles. This analogy frames social media regulation not as censorship but as a common-sense measure to protect individuals and society from harm.
The officials’ strong stance in favor of regulation comes in the wake of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to end the company’s fact-checking program in the U.S., a move criticized by many in the fact-checking community. Zuckerberg’s characterization of fact-checkers as biased and their work as censorship further highlights the tension between social media platforms and those working to combat misinformation. The Brazilian officials’ arguments directly challenge Zuckerberg’s narrative, presenting a counter-argument that emphasizes the vital role of fact-checking and the need for greater platform accountability. The timing of their statements, at a major international fact-checking summit, amplifies their message and underlines the global nature of this debate.
While the Brazilian representatives made a strong case for the need for regulation, they stopped short of offering specific recommendations on how it should be implemented or the precise role fact-checkers should play. This leaves open crucial questions about the practical application of their vision. José Sarmiento, director of ColombiaCheck, captured this sentiment, noting agreement on the urgency of regulation while emphasizing the need for further discussion on the "how". He also stressed the importance of governments engaging with journalists and fact-checkers in the development of regulatory frameworks to ensure that freedom of expression is protected.
The participation of these high-ranking Brazilian figures at GlobalFact signals a growing momentum for government intervention in the digital landscape. Their arguments underscore the increasing recognition of the tangible harms associated with online misinformation and the inadequacy of self-regulatory measures. The case of Brazil, with its recent experience of election-related disinformation and attacks on democratic institutions, serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of unchecked online falsehoods. Their call to action resonates not just within Brazil but also globally, as countries grapples with the challenges posed by the rapid spread of misinformation in the digital age. The debate over regulation versus freedom of expression is far from over, but the voices from Brazil add significant weight to the argument for greater accountability and a more proactive approach to protecting the integrity of online information.
