On Friday, a judge from Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court ordered the suspension of X in the country. This is a spectacular measure. Can we talk about a turning point in the regulation of digital platforms?
We are mistaken when we see GAFA [Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, NDLR] like behemoths, a bit like the Soviet Union, like something that cannot be moved or changed, whereas they are fundamentally start-ups. These are companies that can evolve extremely quickly and, moreover, they have demonstrated this over the last ten years. After The Cambridge Analytica affairforced and constrained by criticism and American justice, Facebook has evolved. Google has changed; particularly in terms of content recommendations, suggestions. At one time, when you typed in the name of a politician, it said ‘Jew’, this is no longer the case. So it is possible to make them evolve. In the fight of civil societies, throughout the world, it is a balance of power. And we are mistaken in thinking that the force is with them. It is evolving, a certain number of people are telling themselves that the force is not with them. And that they need us more than we need them. And that we can force them, and in particular to simply respect the law.
Elon Musk has been tweeting repeatedly to denounce the decision of Judge Alexandre de Moraes. In a message posted on his platform on Friday, he explains that “freedom of expression is the foundation of democracy and, in Brazil, an unelected pseudo-judge is destroying it for political purposes.” How can we respond to this argument about freedom of expression?
Elon Musk doesn’t accept all content on his platform either. He doesn’t have the same limits as others, but for him, it’s the prince’s doing. The argument of freedom of expression is used by Elon Musk to defend conspiracy theorists or neo-Nazis, when they are censored on other networks or when they are attacked at other times. Elon Musk is not neutral. He has been financing Donald Trump’s campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per month for the past few months, and that too is politics, he supports his campaign.
This news echoes the arrest of Pavel Durovon August 24, by French police officers. His Telegram platform is suspected of being used to commit crimes. Never before has a digital platform boss been arrested and indicted for acts committed on his social network. Is there a link between the two decisions of the Justice?
We see these two decisions that seem concomitant, but which depend on two very different things. There is a procedure in Brazil on the use of Twitter in the dissemination of false information that disrupted the 2018 and 2022 elections and that were even considered a driving force behind the attempted coup in Brasilia. There is a procedure that shows that Twitter did not moderate the messages and these messages were a form of motivation for the rioters. What would we say if the main Brazilian media, O Globo, had called for a coup on its channels? We would have closed O Globo. There are people who call for a coup on Twitter and who are not moderated. We close Twitter, that seems logical.
There is now a standoff between these judges and the platforms. Can we expect a change in social networks after these court decisions?
This marks a turning point because the kind of impunity in which these billionaires live with this feeling of omnipotence: this is going to change. This is already going to change the destinations of Mr. Musk with his private jet. Mr. Zuckerberg is going to think twice before getting off the plane in Europe where the DSA [Digital Services Act, ndlr] could put him in difficulty. I say Amen. Long live Brazil. Thank you to the Brazilian Justice for doing what no other jurisdiction in any other country does, which is to demand accountability from those who are ruining our democracies.
