PL Fake News: Withdrawal of regulatory body does not remove fear – 04/30/2023 – Power

The withdrawal of a supervisory body in the so-called Fake News PL did not remove the fear of some sectors of possible state interference in the internet.

The concern appears both among segments in favor of a regulatory instance and among others who are against it.

This is because, without a specific prediction of who will play this role, the competence to supervise social networks can be transferred in the regulation of the law to some Executive body, which could be more harmful than if it were left to an independent autarchy .

The fear gained strength after the president of Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency), Carlos Baigorri, suggested that the agency exercise the function.

The prediction of a regulatory body was removed from the Fake News PL by its rapporteur, Deputy Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP), in the midst of negotiations to get the text approved in the Chamber. Voting is scheduled for next Tuesday (2). Then, if approved, the bill goes to the Senate.

In a previous version, the text gave the Executive the prerogative to create an autonomous entity to regulate the project’s devices, monitor compliance with the rules, initiate administrative processes and apply sanctions.

The point was the target of resistance, and Bolsonarists dubbed the body the “Ministry of Truth”, even though it did not have the prerogative to remove specific content, a decision that would remain up to the platforms.

A member of the DiraCom – Right to Communication and Democracy collective and of the Rights Coalition on the Network, Bia Barbosa claims that the existence of an independent body from the government was precisely what would guarantee freedom of expression, within legal limits.

Without this external body with established prerogatives of independence, he says, in addition to Anatel, other Executive bodies such as the National Consumer Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice may end up with some attributions of supervision of the law, which would be “reckless”.

In his assessment, the removal of the body from the text of the PL is the result of two factors.

The first, she says, would be the argument that any attempt at regulation in the field of communication violates freedom of expression, which she sees as wrong.

And the second factor, in his view, was the lack of presentation by the federal government of what this body would be, including the mechanisms that would guarantee its independence, which opened a gap for criticism.

In a note, the Coalition of Rights on the Network, which brings together more than 50 organizations, expressed itself in favor of an external supervisory body, but against the possibility of delegating the task to Anatel.

Among other arguments, he claims that the agency does not have the competence or expertise to regulate internet applications and that it has unsatisfactory performance even for its sector, in addition to having reduced participation of civil society.

Contrary to the existence of the external body, Ronaldo Lemos, director of the Institute of Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro and columnist for Sheetsays that his removal from the text alleviates, but does not end, the problems of the PL.

“The Executive has been trying to expand its competences to regulate the internet for some time. If a project of this magnitude, complexity and imprecision is approved, in the regulation functions may appear again that will be exercised by the Executive”, he says.

He cites as examples of the federal government’s progress on the issue the creation of a Prosecutor for the Defense of Democracy, with the attribution of acting against disinformation, and Anatel’s initiative to try to enter into the regulation of the networks.

In his assessment, the current model provided for in the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet is ideal, as it maintains due legal process and guarantees the independence of the government in charge.

Lemos participated in the elaboration of this legislation, which was approved in 2014 and gave the Judiciary the attribution of giving the final word on the removal of content in cases where there are disagreements and only holds the platforms responsible if they fail to comply with a court decision.

Inspired by the Fake News Bill, the European Union’s Digital Services Act provides that, in the case of large social networks, regulation will be the responsibility of the European Commission, the body’s executive arm.

She will oversee the systems platforms put in place to combat illegal content and misinformation. It will also have broad investigative and supervisory powers, including the ability to impose sanctions and remedies.

Author of “Freedom of Expression in the Digital Era” (Ed. Fórum, 2022), lawyer Luna Van Brussel Barroso evaluated the absence of a definition of its composition as an important deficiency in the version of the PL that provided for the body.

“The ideal model for regulating this matter is by an independent body, which has a minority composition of the government and a majority of representatives of civil society, including the business sector, academia, the third sector and the scientific and technological community”, he says.

Professor at USP and partner at Opice Blum, Juliano Maranhão defends the so-called regulated self-regulation model.

In this design, regulatory mechanisms and best practices would be in charge of platform associations, and the State would validate codes and evaluate reports.

According to him, the advantage would be that, in an environment of rapid technological evolution, the private sector would have more expertise and agility to react to new challenges. On the other hand, mere self-regulation would not be enough either.

Among the main points of the Fake News PL are the duty of platforms to veto inauthentic accounts and the mandatory disclosure of transparency reports on content moderation.

The project also establishes a fine of up to 10% of the revenue of the economic group in Brazil in case of non-compliance with the law.

The text provides for payment by the platforms for the journalistic content used, without this cost being passed on to the end user. Regarding the form of payment, he points out that the agreement must be made between the platforms and the journalistic companies.

The platforms are opposed to the idea of ​​remuneration, and there is dissent among the vehicles. Entities such as Abert (Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters), Aner (National Association of Magazine Editors) and ANJ (National Association of Newspapers), which brings together the main media outlets, including Sheet, defend the PL; Smaller vehicles fear losing funding because they have less bargaining power.