Overall, it seems to me that everyone loses.
X, formerly Twitter, has just closed its office in Brazil. Announced on August 17, the decision reflects the clash with the Brazilian justice system, which is closing in on the platform purchased by entrepreneur Elon Musk in 2022 and renamed X last year. Despite the closure of the operation, the service will remain available to Brazilian users.
“This is a scenario that is becoming a reality. It is not surprising, because Musk does not want to comply with court decisions. We are talking about investigations into information from the PCC, and not just about issues involving freedom of expression. Musk is hindering judicial investigations. Obviously, care must be taken; the Judiciary must follow guidelines and controls to avoid abuse of power and protect freedom of expression. But we are talking about obstruction of investigations,” observes Yasmin Curzi, professor at FGV Direito Rio.
On August 15, Judge Alexandre de Moraes, a minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), increased the amount of the fine, after X failed to comply with the Court’s order to remove the profile of Senator Marcos do Val (Podemos-ES) from the air, in addition to other accounts investigated by the Federal Police (PF), for posts with antidemocratic content and offenses against authorities. The amount increased from R$50,000 to R$200,000 per day.
“This letter demands the censorship of popular accounts in Brazil, including a pastor, a current member of parliament and the wife of a former member of parliament. We believe the Brazilian people deserve to know what is being asked of us,” published X’s global affairs page, referring to the text with Moraes’s order.
“The Judiciary has every right to pressure the company to provide the requested information, according to the Internet Civil Rights Framework,” explains Yasmin, who also recalls the misinformation spread by X. “According to Article 19 of the Internet Civil Rights Framework, the company has immunity in relation to third-party content, but to do so, it must comply with court decisions. Otherwise, it is committing an illegal act,” she warns.
OX claims that the exit from Brazil protects its executives. “Despite the fact that our numerous appeals to the Brazilian Supreme Court have not been heard, that the Brazilian public has not been informed about these orders, and that our Brazilian team has no responsibility or control over the blocking of content on our platform, Moraes chose to threaten our team in Brazil instead of respecting the law or due process,” X argues in a statement.
“This decision to close X’s office in Brazil was difficult, but if we agreed to @alexandre’s secret (illegal) censorship and demands to transfer private information, there would be no way to explain our actions without feeling ashamed,” Musk said.
Responsibilities
For André Miceli, academic coordinator at FGV and CEO of MIT Technology Review in Brazil, the impact has a negative impact on the effectiveness of digital regulation. “Overall, it seems to me that everyone loses,” he laments. On the eve of municipal elections in Brazil, X’s exit creates a vacuum, supposedly filled by Meta – with Facebook and Instagram – and TikTok, although Musk’s network has a specific audience. “It could increase the concentration of power in these two networks, as they will have an even greater influence on shaping public opinion,” suggests Miceli.
By reducing the scope of monitoring actions, the absence of X could also hinder the implementation of policies to combat disinformation and hate speech. “We will have to understand this better with the next steps,” says Miceli, who still fears questions about the country’s ability to maintain the integrity of the electoral process in the absence of cooperation from digital players.
Given the recent history of conflicts with the Brazilian justice system, X’s exit from Brazil “can be seen as a response to regulatory pressures and the legal environment, which has been presenting itself in a confusing manner regarding freedom of expression, technology and the understanding of the platforms’ responsibility in relation to illicit content and misinformation. There is an issue with the very concept of misinformation”, he insists.
There is also suspicion that Musk wants to avoid further confrontations with the Brazilian justice system. “Digital platforms, including X, have faced increasing pressure to comply with laws. By leaving the Brazilian market, the company can minimize legal and financial risks associated with the courts’ interpretation of any failure to comply with these orders. This strategy can be seen as an attempt to avoid liability,” Miceli believes.
According to the expert, this scenario highlights the difficulty of big tech companies in operating in markets where local laws “are unclear, but strict and with severe penalties.” The movement may be restricted to X due to Musk’s political positions, but the professor draws attention to possible consequences for other technology companies.
Read the full report in the print edition of August 26.
