Plan to regulate scams on networks via MP is criticized – 01/27/2023 – Power

The attempt by the government of President Lula (PT) to impose rules to combat coup d’état on social networks based on an MP (provisional measure) generated a reaction not only in technology companies, but among digital rights activists.

The assessment is that the sensitivity of the topic demands a broad discussion, not with the speed expected in the rite of an MP.

The suggestion of a provisional measure is from the Ministry of Justice and it is now up to another government body, such as the Civil House or the AGU (Attorney General of the Union), to accept it.

The content of the project was anticipated by the Sheet, but the draft has not yet been released. Prepared in Flávio Dino’s folder, the text may be reformulated by the government before being sent to Congress.

When asking the Ministry of Justice for the project, which belongs to an anti-coup package, Lula demanded urgency on the issue as a result of the attacks on the headquarters of the three Powers on January 8.

Sought, the federal government did not respond whether to keep the proposal as MP or transform it into a bill. Organized civil society seeks to pressure Lula to opt for the second option.

“The two possibilities exist and will be analyzed by the President of the Republic. As well as the content of the text itself. What exists is a proposal from the Ministry of Justice, still under internal analysis in the government”, says Dino to Sheet.

The Rights Coalition on the Network, which brings together more than 50 entities and is in favor of regulation, released a letter this Friday night (27) stating that a provisional measure is incompatible with the debate on internet use and that it brings insecurity.

“The principle of multisectoral internet governance, respected by Brazil, requires that matters like this be discussed with the participation of the different sectors affected and interested in regulation”, he says.

The coalition adds that it is necessary to balance new responsibilities for digital platforms with the “guarantee of human rights protection, as occurred in the discussion of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet”.

In addition to criticizing the rite, the letter states that, given what has been published so far, the proposal would attribute to the platforms, “without objective criteria and without enabling monitoring by other entities, the responsibility of prohibiting the circulation of content”, which would expand the power of companies over online conversations.

According to the text of the folder, the platforms will have the duty to prevent the dissemination of content already considered illegal, such as a request for the abolition of the democratic rule of law, incitement to violence to overthrow the government and animosity between the Armed Forces and the constitutional powers.

Companies would still have to file periodic transparency reports detailing how they removed or reduced the reach of this type of content. They would be required to remove them using their own usage rules.

The text of the folder also indirectly creates an exception to article 19 of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, which only civilly holds companies accountable if they do not remove publications from the air after a court order. Attacks on the rule of law would be seen as non-consensual nudity, which today must be removed from platforms without the need for a court order.

For Bruna Martins dos Santos, visiting researcher at WZB, the Center for Social Sciences in Berlin, the attacks and problems with moderation on the platforms on the 8th may lead to the idea that regulation is urgent, but it is necessary to be aware of the risk of vigilantism.

“Some issues are highly subjective, such as the definition of coup language. It is necessary to know who would be the public institution to define what is or is not illegal, because leaving this interpretation only to the platforms is a risk to the freedom of expression of the users,” he says.

The text from the Ministry of Justice deals with content that may constitute crimes against the democratic rule of law typified in a specific section of the Penal Code and explicit terrorism crimes by Law No. 13,260.

Another point raised by experts is that other countries have self-regulation bodies to which platforms can resort in cases of doubt about content.

“Germany has typified legislation on the subject for decades. The German legal framework is already consolidated and has a history of application. We don’t have that in Brazil. They are totally different cultural contexts”, says Renata Mielli, from the Centro de Estudos da Mídia Alternativa Barão de Itararé.

“We are very critical of social networks, which maintained, for example, paid lives calling for acts that attacked the State. The platforms had to take this down immediately, they have instruments for that, but this enforcement [garantia] does not need to come under an MP”, he adds.

The text of Dino’s portfolio also provides for rules similar to the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) resolution adopted ten days before the second round of the election for cases in which Justice determines the withdrawal of content. The norm established a period of two hours after notification for removal of publication, under penalty of a fine of R$ 100,000 to R$ 150,000 per hour of non-compliance.

The resolution divided opinions: on the one hand, it was effective in helping to curb the coup; on the other, it blocked accounts entirely.

Experts say that, so far, there are no concrete instruments to analyze the consequences of this rule.

“Justice may have understood that this worked very well in the electoral process and seems to have decided to transplant this experience outside the TSE”, says André Giacchetta, a lawyer at the Pinheiro Neto law firm who has acted on platforms in the area of ​​electoral propaganda on the internet.

“If this is a possibility, how do we evaluate the experience at the TSE. Were there excesses? What were they?”, he asks.

The Ministry of Justice’s view is that the proposal does not intend to debate a comprehensive regulation of social networks, but to generate stability so that new episodes of depredation and acts of violence, largely articulated through the internet, are not repeated.