Lula's Social Media Regulation: A Step Towards Chinese-Style Censorship in Brazil?

For Lula: Regulating Social Media Means Copying China's Control Model

In recent years, the debate surrounding social media regulation has gained global prominence, driven by concerns over disinformation, hate speech, and their impact on democracy. In Brazil, this discussion has been particularly intense, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks. However, critics argue that the proposals under discussion bear a closer resemblance to a model of censorship and state control, comparable to practices in countries like China, rather than balanced legislation for the digital environment.

The Proposal for Regulation in Brazil

The primary instrument currently under consideration for the regulation of digital platforms in Brazil is Bill 2,630/2020, popularly known as the Fake News Bill (PL das Fake News). Although the project was originally proposed to combat disinformation, it has undergone several modifications and taken on new contours under the current administration. The Lula government argues that regulation is fundamental to hold major tech companies accountable for the dissemination of illegal and harmful content, protect user rights, and ensure a healthier digital environment.

On several occasions, President Lula and members of his government have expressed the urgency of the measure. During an event in Portugal in April 2024, Lula stated: "The state must take responsibility for regulating the internet, because the internet cannot be a free territory where anything goes. If the internet is a no-man's land, then we have to put a sheriff in charge." This declaration illustrates the governmental view that the state should play an active role in online content moderation.

Regulation or Censorship? The Central Debate

The line between regulation and censorship is thin and has been at the epicenter of criticism against the Fake News Bill. Civil society organizations, digital law experts, and opposition parliamentarians warn of the risk that the moderation prerogatives granted to platforms or a potential regulatory body could result in undue restrictions on freedom of expression.

One of the most controversial points is the proposal to create an "autonomous entity" responsible for oversight and enforcement of the new rules. Critics view this entity as a potential state arm for controlling what can or cannot be said online. Ronaldo Lemos, a law and technology professor and renowned expert, in a recent article, expressed concern about the risk that regulation could be used to silence dissenting voices, stating that "the temptation to control public debate is great in any government."

Furthermore, the requirement for platforms to remove "illegal" content within tight deadlines, without a clear and transparent judicial process, is seen as an open door to censorship. The interpretation of what constitutes "illegal" can be subjective and set dangerous precedents, especially in a context of political polarization like Brazil's.

The Confusion Between Regulating and Prohibiting

Recently, the distinction between regulation and the prohibition of disseminating ideas has become even more blurred with concrete government actions. In an episode that generated widespread controversy, the Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU - Attorney General's Office), the government's highest legal representation body, requested the removal of posts and publications about First Lady Janja Lula da Silva's trip to China. The AGU's justification was to combat "disinformation and hate speech" related to the trip's expenses.

This direct intervention, which resulted in the removal of content that could merely be critical or opinion-based, raised an alarm. For many, the AGU's action, proceeding without a prior judicial decision declaring the content illegal, was a clear example of censorship. The measure did not aim to regulate the form or platform of communication but rather to prohibit the circulation of certain ideas or criticisms, even if they were not demonstrably false or incited violence. The absence of a robust judicial process to determine the illegality of content before its removal reinforces the perception that the government might be confusing the role of regulator with that of censor.

The Comparison with China's Control Model

The suggestion that Lula's proposal for regulating social media resembles China's internet control model is not new, but it has gained traction among critics. China is known for its "Great Firewall," an online censorship and surveillance system that restricts access to foreign websites, monitors citizens' communication, and suppresses dissent.

While the Brazilian government does not propose widespread blocking of platforms, the concern lies in the centralization of decision-making power over content and potential state interference. Fábio Wajngarten, former Communications Secretary for the Bolsonaro government and a prominent opposition figure, has publicly stated in interviews that Lula's proposals "aim at the Chinese model of control, where the state decides what citizens can or cannot see." This view is echoed by conservative parliamentarians and activists who advocate for unrestricted internet freedom.

The focus on "combating disinformation," while legitimate in its premise, is often the starting point for authoritarian regimes to justify restricting rights. In China, the "harmonization" of the digital environment is used to eliminate any content the Communist Party deems threatening to its stability. Critics fear that, in Brazil, the creation of a regulatory agency with broad powers could, in the future, be instrumentalized for political purposes, silencing voices critical of the government. The case of the removal of posts about Janja in China serves as a worrying harbinger of this possibility.

Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion about social media regulation in Brazil is far from a consensus. While the government insists on the need for platform accountability and user protection, the opposition and parts of civil society warn of the risks of censorship and narrative control.

The implementation of any regulatory framework would need to balance digital security with the fundamental protection of freedom of expression, without abandoning democratic principles. The challenge for Brazil is to find a path that does not lean towards information control models characteristic of authoritarian regimes, such as China's, but genuinely creates a fairer and safer online environment.

Will Brazil manage to draw a clear line between necessary regulation and undesirable censorship, or will the current proposals pave the way for information control that compromises its citizens' digital freedom?

UNVEILED BRAZIL SEARCH