Lula government leaves broad regulation of networks in second place – 01/26/2023 – Power

The proposal presented by the Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino (PSB), to President Lula (PT) with obligations to social media platforms prioritizes the fight against coup-promoting content, but leaves the regulation of other topics, such as fake news and disinformation, in the background. about health.

Critics of this more restricted scope point out that there is a risk of spending a lot of political capital to approve a specific project, which could hinder a second discussion on the regulation of platforms – the topic has been intensely debated in the last two years in Congress.

On the other hand, there are those who defend the initiative as a “trial balloon” for a general regulation of social networks.

Since the campaign, Lula has signaled that he intended to regulate social media. The issue gained urgency with the coup attacks on January 8.

The proposal was presented by Dino to Lula in the form of a provisional measure and is part of an anti-coping package. According to the minister, the proposals will be analyzed by Lula and other areas of the government before being sent, in February, to Congress.

Such as Sheet showed, the text determines that platforms will have a “duty of care” to prevent the dissemination of content that calls for the abolition of the democratic rule of law, encourages violence to overthrow the government and publicly incites animosity between the Armed Forces and the Powers.

In an interview with journalists, Dino also mentioned terrorism and stated that the rules are not considered by the government as a regulation on big techs. “It’s something focused exclusively on crimes against the democratic rule of law and terrorism,” he said.

The wording also brings the obligation of transparency reports on content moderation, in addition to reducing the deadline for complying with court orders on removal and imposing higher fines.

One of the proposals of the government transition Communications working group was to start the debate on platform regulation based on a public consultation in the first hundred days of government.

The government’s assessment is that a specific proposal provides an immediate response to the January 8 attacks.

During the mandate of Jair Bolsonaro (PL), the debate on the subject focused on PL 2630, the fake news project, and was presented as a response to misinformation about the pandemic.

Approved in the Senate, it did not advance in the Chamber after strong resistance from platforms and government supporters.

PL 2630 is long and requires companies to disclose transparency reports on content moderation and advertising. They would also have to notify users of actions taken against the profiles and provide a channel for appeal.

Congressman Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP), rapporteur for the project in the Chamber, said that he has not yet had access to the entirety of the proposal, but that he considers the idea of ​​focusing only on obligations related to the defense of the rule of law to be negative. For him, it is necessary to approve something broader.

“The problem of disinformation involves public health issues and needs to be taken care of very carefully. It is not just political content”, he says.

According to him, one should look at Brazil beyond January 8th. “To preserve Brazilian democracy, public policies, guarantee access to information, produce a healthy life in the country, regulating platforms is a challenge. You won’t do that with a topical approach to the problem.”

For elected federal deputy Duarte Júnior (PSB-MA), Dino’s ally and who accompanied part of the discussion on the package, an ideal regulation plan would advance on different issues, such as public health and consumer relations. But he defends the speed in approving this proposal and considers that the bill of fake news created many obligations for the platforms.

“We have to establish rules that actually make sense, not an exaggerated number of rules that platforms will have to adapt to, but that will make no social sense.”

The view of the Ministry of Justice is that there was a generalized lack of moderation by the platforms in explicitly illegal content in the days before the attacks, such as calls for invasion and depredation of the headquarters of the three Powers.

For Carlos Affonso Souza, professor at Uerj (University of the State of Rio de Janeiro) and director of ITS-Rio (Institute of Technology and Society), dealing with moderation of anti-democratic content can serve as a trial balloon for a more comprehensive rule.

“But it is important to be clear about the rules that will meet the so-called duty of care, preventing it from generating even more subjectivities”, he says.

He says platforms could have done more in recent years to promote content moderation in a more “transparent, informative and coherent way”. He also points to risks as stimuli for removing legitimate speech.

“The market can win with some guidelines on content moderation, but the more detailed this legislation is, the greater the risk of it being unbalanced, starting with the standards that define what an anti-democratic speech is”, he evaluates.

Despite understanding the urgency given to the topic, Raquel Saraiva, lawyer and president of the Recife Institute of Research in Law and Technology, says that there is a risk that other topics will be forgotten with the presentation of a more restricted proposal.

“We need to have this discussion about broad regulation of platforms. The fear is that this project captures this discussion”, he says. “Conducting a legislative process of this nature is already very complicated, then having to do it twice… I really think the debate will lose steam.”

Experts also advocate that the academic and scientific community be involved in the debate before the project is presented to Congress.