More results...
On April 28, Felipe Neto, a Brazilian YouTuber with more than 45 million followers, was angry. He had just received a message from YouTube warning him about PL2630, a bill in Brazilβs National Congress dubbed the βFake News Lawβ that would regulate online platforms. Influencers like Neto, the company said, could be forced to take down content to avoid lawsuits, and the government might be able to control parts of YouTubeβs platform.
To Neto, that warning was itself fake news. He felt that the message, and a similar post onΒ YouTubeβs blog, mischaracterized the proposed legislation. βThe attempt to manipulate creators against the bill was clear,β Neto says. In response, he TweetedΒ the message from YouTube along with his own replies to its statements, warning other content producers to βread carefully, because I have never seen such a heavy attempt to use creators to defend Googleβs interests.β
Neto was responding to just one part of a multipronged effort in Brazil by Google and several other major US technology companies to beat back a bill that sought to impose a new regulatory structure on them. It would require platforms and search engines to find and remove hate speech, misinformation, and other illegal content or be subject to fines.Β
In the weeks leading up to a congressional vote scheduled early this month, Brazilians noticed a bombardment of ads and company statements pushing back on the proposed law. Ads on Instagram, Facebook, and in national newspapers linked to a GoogleΒ blog post calling for an extended debate on the bill. The post said that some parts of the bill had not been debated in Congress, and that the timing of the vote had limited βthe space for discussion and possibilities for improving the text in Congress.βΒ
Last week, just 24 hours before Brazilβs National Congress was set to vote on the bill, users in the country opening up the Google homepage were greeted with a link below the Search box that read, βThe fake news bill could increase confusion about what is true or false in Brazil.β GoogleΒ removed the link after the countryβs Ministry of Justice said it would fine the company up to $200,000 per hour for what the agency called a βpropaganda campaignβ violating the consumer protection laws.
βYou have to make it transparent that someone paid for [a message], that itβs a companyβs position, and thatβs why itβs there,β says Estela Aranha, digital rights secretary for the Brazilian Ministry of Justice. Rafael CorrΓͺa, director of communications and public affairs at Google Brazil describes the companyβs push against the bill as a βmarketing campaign to give broader visibility to our concernsβ and likened it to previous campaigns on matters of public interest such as to promote voting or Covid-19 vaccinations. He says the notice sent to Neto and others was an attempt to explain βlegitimateβ risks of the bill.
The vote on the bill was stalled last week due to an influx of last-minute amendments, but the way US tech platforms, particularly Google, sought to shape public debate over the law has sparked increased concern among experts and government officials in Brazil. The industryβs attempts to fend off new regulation may now lead to it receiving even more scrutiny.
Wake Up Call
The need for social media regulation has, to some in Brazil, felt greater since January 8th, when thousands of peopleΒ stormed the National Congress in support of defeated right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro. Like the assault on the US Congress in 2021, the Brazilian uprising was fomented on platforms likeΒ Telegram, and activist groups found that advertisements questioning the integrity of the elections repeatedly slipped through Metaβs systems. President Luiz InΓ‘cio Lula da Silva, known as βLula,β has been open about the need toΒ regulate platforms more aggressively.
βThe platforms were unprepared, but most importantly, unwilling to take tough measures against hate speech and disinformation around elections,β says Flora Arduini, campaign director at the advocacy group EkΕ. βFor the Lula government, January 8 was really the moment where they felt, βWe need to take this debate forward to effectively regulate the platforms.ββ
More results...