The first days of 2025 brought significant developments in the field of digital platform regulation. The extremely harmful political shift announced by Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, caused alarm worldwide. The news affects us directly, especially at a time when the debate over the regulation of digital platforms is particularly intense in Brazil, due to the Supreme Federal Court’s (STF) review of cases concerning Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework (Marco Civil da Internet).

The measures announced by Meta are disastrous from the standpoint of combating disinformation and violence on the company’s platforms. Zuckerberg’s announcement, titled “more speech and fewer mistakes,” makes explicit the replacement of fact-checkers with a community notes system, similar to what exists on X (formerly Twitter), as well as the reduction of content moderation filters, which will now be maintained only for violations deemed severe (terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, and fraud). It thus becomes clear that there will no longer be active efforts to combat disinformation, hate speech, and violence against more vulnerable groups, such as women, LGBTQIAP+ people, Black people, immigrants, among others. All of this is done in the name of a supposed “freedom of expression.”

What is actually happening is a political alignment of the company with the Musk–Trump wing of power, that is, a defense of freedom of expression as an absolute right, which ends up allowing the use of violent speech without any consequences within the platforms.

It is important to stress that there are already failures in content moderation on digital platforms that have been systematically denounced. The removal of legitimate content without explanation, the suspension of accounts without due transparency or due process, and content that violates the law and the companies’ own policies yet remains online are recurring cases, since automated moderation carried out by algorithmic filters has clear limitations. However, the complete absence of these filters places us in an even more vulnerable situation, as there will now be no barriers to extreme cases.

Zuckerberg’s statement, however, claims that the company’s efforts have been harming innocent users through undue content removals, which, in the billionaire’s view, would justify suspending moderation and fact-checking programs.

Following the announcement, Meta’s new platform policy allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, considered political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality, as well as the common and non-literal use of terms such as ‘weird.’” The new guideline further states that “we allow content advocating for gender-based limitations in military, police, and teaching jobs. We also allow similar content related to sexual orientation, provided it is grounded in religious beliefs.”

The CEO also stated that the company will once again recommend political content, again under the justification of defending freedom of expression.

All of this rhetoric is laden with prejudice and misogyny. After the official announcement, Zuckerberg even stated in an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast that companies need “more masculine energy.” It is worth recalling that the creation of his social network is linked to misogynistic practices of “rating” the attractiveness of female students at Harvard University.

But this was only the cherry on top of Zuckerberg’s Trumpist turn. Prior to that, he had already publicly praised the U.S. president, donated to his inaugural fund, and appointed a key Trump supporter, Dana White (yes, the UFC executive), to Meta’s Board of Directors.

And how does this affect Brazil?

One of Meta’s CEO’s statements in the video announcing the changes was that there are “secret censorship courts” in Latin America and Europe, which can easily be interpreted as a criticism of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court and its attempt to regulate what the National Congress has been unable to address.

Here, an important note is necessary: the task of regulating platforms, which is extremely necessary, should be carried out by the National Congress, within its strict constitutional mandate. In this specific case, there is a significant risk that, through the STF’s ruling, Article 19 could be weakened as a legal instrument for assessing the legality of platform content. This would be the worst-case scenario. But even if the STF opts for an interpretation of the provision in line with the Constitution, essential transparency and due process measures for user safety would still be lacking. In other words, federal deputies and senators must act, as the STF will never be able to fully address the regulatory need on its own.

Zuckerberg’s statement about alleged “secret censorship courts” likely stems from the battle fought by X (formerly Twitter) with the STF, to the point that the platform was suspended nationwide. The reality is that platforms wishing to operate in Brazil must comply with local laws and court orders, respecting Brazilian sovereignty, a point reaffirmed by Justice Alexandre de Moraes in a public statement during a ceremony commemorating the January 8 attacks, which, incidentally, were orchestrated using digital platforms.

Moreover, after negative repercussions in Brazil, the company responded to a notification from the Office of the Attorney General (AGU), stating that the Fact-Checking Program would be discontinued only in the United States and would not apply to Brazil. However, the statement confirms that changes to the hate conduct policy have already been implemented in the country, with the stated aim of “ensuring greater space for freedom of expression.”

Civil society has also taken action. The National Association of Transvestites and Transsexuals (ANTRA) filed a complaint against Meta with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office due to the authorization of speech that allows associating transsexuality and homosexuality with mental illness under the pretext of “political and religious discourse.”

In turn, the Rights on the Net Coalition (Coalizão Direitos na Rede), of which IP.rec is a member and which includes more than 50 civil society and academic organizations defending digital rights, published a letter with over 200 signatures calling on Meta platforms to “review the measures and assume their responsibility in combating hate speech, disinformation, and online exploitation,” as well as urging “governments and organizations around the world to intensify efforts to create a global regulatory framework that protects digital rights and ensures that the digital space is a safe, fair, and democratic environment for all.”

All of this is to say that no one is satisfied with the company’s new direction. That is, except those who enjoy overstepping boundaries and spreading disinformation and hate speech against minority groups, who are celebrating, supposedly sheltered under the mantle of freedom of expression.

But why does this affect us?

A large part of our lives takes place on the internet and within the so-called “walled gardens” of digital platforms. Whether we like it or not, the rules imposed by those who control these environments are part of our daily lives in today’s hyperconnected society. When these rules are modified in ways that allow violations of fundamental rights, they must be reviewed.

Moreover, the most vulnerable people will, contrary to what these measures claim to promote, have their freedom of expression curtailed, since being even more exposed will make them think twice before expressing their views on Meta’s platforms. In other words, more power for oppressors and less voice for the oppressed.

The new moderation rules therefore favor a violent and disinformation-rich environment, highly conducive to the expansion of the far-right’s modus operandi, which uses disinformation that reinforces prejudice to spread its ideas. This can be particularly harmful during electoral periods, as we have seen in recent elections, since the spread of lies and prejudice proliferates online, reaching thousands of people, all driven by algorithms calibrated to favor this type of viral content. Regulation that protects users’ rights is urgently needed.

Next chapters in this story

The digital platform regulation landscape in Brazil is heating up due to recent developments. The AGU held a public hearing to receive contributions from experts, civil society, and the platforms themselves, although the latter did not attend. There are also reports that the federal government plans to negotiate with the National Congress the submission of a new bill on the matter, under which platforms would be subject to a “duty of precaution,” similar to the duty of care described in the European Digital Services Act. However, this decision apparently depends on the conclusion of the STF’s ongoing cases.

And this brings us to another chapter to watch closely. After the votes of Justices Toffoli and Fux, rapporteurs of the two cases under review, which contained technical inaccuracies and would have harmful consequences for human rights, even excessively innovating in the legal system by imposing obligations and new rules on platforms beyond constitutional limits, Justice Barroso, President of the Court, cast a more balanced vote. His opinion weighed rights, acknowledged the diversity of affected actors, and reflected on proportionality in relation to the Judiciary’s competencies in this process.

According to a statement published by the Rights on the Net Coalition, “Justice Barroso’s vote reconciles the questions raised by the appeals under review with the legal and institutional limits of the STF,” while also presenting “concrete interpretative paths, with hypotheses for applying an exceptions regime, criteria for collateral duties, and mechanisms of social control. At the same time that it offers more balanced answers, the vote preserves the regulatory space that falls within the competence of Congress.”

The question, then, is whether Meta’s new direction could change the voting dynamics within the Court, potentially leading to a tightening of restrictions on platforms, which could also be harmful to us as users. In any case, it is essential that the Justices bear in mind the limits of their adjudicatory authority, which cannot be overstepped without violating the principle of separation of powers.

Ultimately, Meta’s new policy puts at risk the diversity and plurality of ideas necessary for building a just, egalitarian, and democratic society.

Raquel Saraiva