Elon Musk and Lula Da Silva
The dilemma of the West: Freedom of speech or content regulation?
In recent weeks, Western democracies have faced a debate that shakes the frameworks of freedom, separation of powers, and notions of censorship in the 21st century. It was on August 30, 2024 that Brazil's Federal Supreme Court (STF) ordered the 'immediate suspension' of the social network X (formerly Twitter), following the company's refusal to appoint a legal representative in the South American country. The lack of a representative in the country came after judge Alexandre de Moraes requested the blocking of accounts linked to the instigation of attacks against public powers in Brazil in what became known as the 'Digital Militias' case, propelling conflict with Elon Musk amid accusations of censorship and political persecution.
Following accusations of censorship by Elon Musk, who criticized Lula da Silva’s 'dictatorial' regime and his 'partner' Alexandre de Moraes, Musk launched an offensive using memes and parodies where he compared judge De Moraes to Lord Voldemort, satirizing the magistrate. In the logic of his own algorithm, and leveraging his powerful megaphone, Musk placed the discussion within the framework of liberal and libertarian right against the canceling impulses of 'woke' culture and the left, hiding that, fundamentally, there is a much larger power discussion, which is the power of the nation-state against that of multinational corporations.
Indeed, over the last 20 years, there has been a growing collision between state powers and transnational social networks operating on a global scale; the Brazilian debate is not an isolated case. In 2022, the European Union went against the tech giant "Meta" (formerly known as Facebook), with Brussels attempting to impose regulations on social networks. Meta suggested that if such regulations were enacted, Facebook and Instagram could become inaccessible to European citizens. Public officials in Germany responded to the company’s warnings stating: 'We’ll be fine without Facebook,' a reaction that forced Meta to retract its words and assure them it would not abandon Europe.
Moreover, after the 2016 elections when Donald Trump was elected president, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of the company, became a 'frequent guest' of the United States Congress, where he was frequently summoned to explain accusations of his company’s alleged interventions in the electoral process.
In the dilemma between social media companies and the state lies the question of who is the legitimate owner of the information that users provide to large companies, for what purpose these platforms utilize this information, and whether the state should ensure the safety of citizens who provide such information to a private entity. The provision by citizens of their information only to have it traded by large companies that do not make significant local investments, do not employ a large number of citizens, nor generate greater innovation in the local tech industry, turn these companies into echo chambers of private interests without any regulation or mediation. Furthermore, when we look at everyday life, the notable lack of coordination between the state and companies has consequences for citizens in situations ranging from the hacking of a WhatsApp account and the endless bureaucracy involved in recovering the account, to situations of sharing images without the consent of the other party.
Models of State Control over Social Networks in Asia
However, this model of unrestricted, uncoordinated public-private navigation is not universal at all. In Asia, both in opaque totalitarian regimes like China or North Korea, as well as in liberal democracies like Japan and South Korea, there are strong controls by states regarding content dissemination.
The case of South Korea is quite paradigmatic. Within the framework of its historical conflict with its Northern neighbor, the National Security Law prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of any material deemed sympathetic or propagandistic in favor of North Korea. This includes books, movies, music, and other content that may be interpreted as pro-North Korean. The law is also used to restrict access to websites that the government deems could be used to promote or glorify the North Korean regime. The South Korean government actively blocks access to websites disseminating information related to the North that could be considered propagandistic or threatening to state security. Many critics and human rights organizations have argued that the National Security Law has been used to suppress dissent and restrict freedom of expression.
China's case, on the other hand, despite being a significant authoritarian dictatorship, has a social media platform model where companies are completely subordinated to the Chinese state and its laws. This subjugation has caused distrust in the West, as seen in the United States with TikTok. The social media model is characterized by rigorous governmental control and the integration of diverse services under local platforms, operating within a framework of censorship and government promotion. This configuration allows the state to control accessible information and also utilize these platforms as tools for surveillance and propagation of state ideology.
In India, which holds the title of the world's largest democracy, the social media landscape has been particularly tense. In 2021, a significant incident exacerbated these tensions when Twitter labeled several tweets from politicians of the ruling BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) as "manipulated content." This action by Twitter triggered a vehement backlash from the Indian government, which accused the platform of bias and a lack of transparency in its labeling policies.
As a consequence of this confrontation, the Indian government implemented new regulations that included provisions for criminally holding technology company employees accountable for not complying with government requests for content removal. This measure was perceived by many industry executives as a "hostage provision,” significantly raising the risks for technology companies' operations in India.
Possible pathways for Latin America
We can say that there are various models of interaction between states and social media platforms. In the Latin American case, the region does not have the capacity to generate closed circuits of social networks that would allow for complete data protection. Likewise, Latin American countries, in particular, do not have the market weight that India has to impose conditions, making it necessary to propose alternative models.
There are many small actions that could create digital environments where crime could be better controlled. For example, social networks like "X" do not require documentation or facial verification to create new accounts, which would allow for better tracking of cybercrime or penalizing actions of digital harassment such as "doxxing" (publishing personal data without consent) or grooming. By having residential data, this would allow the state to request the deletion of accounts that use social networks to violate the law.
Furthermore, since the internet is a space where state sovereignty does not apply, it is essential to create reporting spaces that allow users to quickly report digital crimes and that, should the crime be proven, lead to a more automatic account deletion of those infringing the law. But for all this, resources, political will, and further digitization of the state are necessary.
The case of Brazil is simply a spearhead for a debate that is settled in Asia but still presents great challenges in Latin America.
Comments