**Introduction**

September 1, 2024, the platform X remains offline in Brazil. With nearly 22 million users in the country, the issue is of significant proportions. The media has been reporting moment by moment on the battle between billionaire Elon Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The platform’s outage is due to a court order, while Musk responds by portraying himself as a victim defending "freedom of speech." Who is in the right in this clash? Let's analyze what is happening.

**Historical Overview**

A bit of context, over the past few decades, information and communication technologies have become ubiquitous in everyday life. From the simplest to the most complex aspects of daily routines, we find the presence of technology. Today, most individuals own a smartphone. This technological aspect has made cell phones an integral part of both subjective and social constitution. Financial transactions, social interactions, healthcare, everything is, in some way, related to personal devices. While a few years ago these devices could be considered luxury items, today even the poorest segments of the population own smartphones. Therefore, the ubiquity of these devices must be taken into account in any sociological analysis.

Considering the political dimension, smartphones are of central importance in affirming democratic states. Let’s conduct a regressive exercise and go back a decade. In 2010, a wave of revolutions began in the Middle East and North Africa. Fighting for civil rights and freedom, different nations sought to unite their voices against authoritarian states.

These revolutions spread globally, taking on different forms in different countries, with one common thread: the power of cyber activism as a central force in fighting repression and censorship. Without a doubt, the internet was a key piece in the struggle for freedom, authoritarian governments tried to impose forms of censorship, but to no avail. The collective power strengthened by social networks amplified voices that had previously been silenced. In this context, the banner of freedom of expression was a condition of possibility for collective empowerment against authoritarian regimes.

The way the internet and social networks are used is specific to a given context. Years have passed, and the consequences of the revolts of the 2010s are still felt, whether positive or negative.

With the continued technological evolution and the mass adoption of social networks, the relationship between governments and the internet has been modulated. In this sense, two aspects stand out: first, regulation, and second, the use of the internet for electoral purposes.

Regulation is necessary both to guarantee individual freedoms and to protect citizens from potential abuses, such as the unauthorized use of personal data. Digital regulations have advanced worldwide. In Brazil, the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, enacted in 2014, is the legal foundation for thinking about rights and duties within digital networks. Regulation aims to promote good practices in digital environments, considering that virtual spaces are subject to the same legal and juridical consequences as the real physical world. Whether for individual or institutional use, regulation applies to everyone.

Given the national use of the internet, it is possible to understand the possibilities for political use. When it comes to democratic elections, networks have increasingly gained strength as an important electoral tool. In Brazil and around the world, the internet can be the difference between the election or defeat of a candidate, creating a market for advertising and news that moves large amounts of money. The relationship between the internet and elections still inhabits a legal landscape marked by loopholes and obscurities, a fine line between criminal speech and freedom of expression. This clash is fundamental to understanding the current situation of X in Brazil.

**The Role of the Internet in the Last Brazilian Elections**

In 2018, candidate Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil in an unprecedented campaign. Until 2017, Bolsonaro was a congressman within a restricted niche, occasionally going viral as a meme due to controversial statements. Leveraging the rapid transmission power of viral content, Bolsonaro's campaign revolved around the power of the meme. "The myth" gained traction, and without concern for a concrete political agenda, Bolsonaro's campaign managed to co-opt the social imagination around a fictitious figure. It wasn't Congressman Jair Bolsonaro who was elected, it was "The Captain," the personified meme.

Using social networks, the political discourse circulated within digital bubbles, constructing a mythological figure with no connection to the country's historical-political reality. The meme succeeded in tapping into the cathartic sentiment of a dissatisfied nation, causing news to spread virally through social media. The power of the internet also made the crowdfunding campaign for his candidacy a success, raising the highest amount ever for a candidate. Bolsonaro's election was a historic milestone, signaling a new form of electoral campaign focused on digital bubbles, which raised questions about the legality of the tools used.

These issues culminated in the establishment of a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission in 2019, aimed at investigating mass dissemination of false information during the 2018 elections and the use of social networks for orchestrated attacks against public officials and institutions.

The spread of fake news and hate speech is a critical issue in contemporary politics. In Brazil and around the world, there have been discussions on how to regulate digital media while maintaining and ensuring freedom.

At the present moment, September 2024, Brazil is on the eve of new elections. Next month, municipal representatives will be chosen across the country. It is in this context that the clash between Elon Musk and the Brazilian government is taking place.

**Musk vs. Moraes: Between Freedom and Manipulation**

By tracing the history of the relationship between the internet and politics, we come closer to the details of the dispute involving X and the Brazilian government. The conflict between the social network and the government began to escalate in 2023.

In 2022, Bolsonaro lost the presidential election. Bolsonaro supporters were deeply dissatisfied with the outcome, which led to a movement contesting the election results. Using unfounded arguments, Bolsonaro supporters sought to annul the election. Seeing that this was not legally possible, they decided to resort to direct action in an attempted coup d'état.

On January 8, 2023, a group of Bolsonaro supporters attempted to overthrow the newly elected government. In this coup attempt, they marched through Brazil's capital and invaded public buildings, such as the Chamber of Deputies and the Presidential Palace. This act was marked by vandalism and violence. Lacking political support, the coup failed, and organizers and participants began to face legal consequences for their anti-democratic actions.

At this point, Alexandre de Moraes, a Supreme Court Justice, ordered the social network X to hand over the names and IP addresses of those responsible for organizing the coup attempt. According to Brazilian law, X was required to provide the requested information, otherwise, it would be obstructing justice.

Elon Musk refused to comply with the Brazilian Supreme Court's request, claiming it was an attack on freedom of expression. In response, Alexandre de Moraes imposed a fine and summoned the company's legal representative to appear in court.

Using arguments that the decision was "anti-democracy" and "anti-free speech," Musk ordered the closure of the social network's offices in Brazil. In response to what he considered "censorship demands," he decided to fire all employees, leaving Brazil without any legal representation.

The decision to close the office in the country and leave the platform without a legal representative on national soil directly violates Brazilian law, which requires any foreign company to have a legal representative in the country. According to Article 1,138 of the law:

"A foreign company authorized to operate is required to have a permanent representative in Brazil, with the power to resolve any issues and receive legal summons on behalf of the company."

Elon Musk responded with sarcasm and memes, using X to attack the government, particularly Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was often referred to as a dictator.

**Precedents**

It is important to clarify that the Supreme Federal Court’s decision has precedents. In 2023, Alexandre de Moraes ordered the messaging app Telegram to appoint a legal representative in the country. The measure was complied with, and Telegram designated a Brazilian law firm as the company's legal representative.

Another situation occurred in 2021 when Donald Trump’s account (initially on Twitter, and subsequently on other social networks) was suspended due to posts encouraging the invasion of the U.S. Congress. At that time, Trump's account was blocked, content was taken down, and some posts remained online but with disabled likes and comments.

While the defense of individual freedoms is a crucial banner, there is a line where crimes are committed under the guise of freedom of expression. At the time of Trump's account blocking, there was strong pressure from various segments of society demanding stricter measures.

Considering these two cases as precedents for the current situation of X in Brazil, we begin to understand that the attacks on Brazilian judicial institutions have motivations beyond those presented under the guise of freedom.

**Final Considerations**

In our global technological society, the internet plays a significant role both individually and socially. Both state and private institutions depend to varying degrees on digital connectivity. In this context, social networks are one of the pillars of communication and information exchange.

Given the global nature of the current era, national states have sought ways to regulate the digital world. While the internet appears to have no boundaries, each country has specific legislations aimed at maintaining national sovereignty and ensuring citizens' security. In some cases, regulation can turn into harsh lines of repression and censorship, making cyber activism an important weapon of struggle.

However, each case must be analyzed individually, examining the nuances and interests involved. In the current clash between Elon Musk and Minister Alexandre de Moraes, financial interests are camouflaged in political rhetoric. Musk is playing a narrative game, attempting to manipulate reality to his advantage. He disregards legislation, claiming to be a victim of persecution and excess.

Minister Moraes' decision is entirely based on Brazilian Civil Code, which mandates that foreign companies have an office and legal representative within the country. The victim narrative distorts reality, questioning individual freedom when the fact is an international company committing offenses on Brazilian soil.

Musk is directly interested in the profits from Brazilian electoral campaigns. He claims to be concerned about freedom of expression while racist speeches and fake news spread across the network. He uses the myth of unrestricted freedom, where personal opinion is placed above facts.

Let us not be deceived, freedom of expression is crucial for an egalitarian democratic society, but this is not what is at stake here. With slogans, Musk gains support through disinformation, without concern for groups and individuals who may be harmed by practices that are ultimately criminal.

While 20 million Brazilians are harmed by the platform’s blockade, the blame lies solely with Elon Musk, who refuses to appoint a legal representative within Brazil. Without the illusion of a manichean battle between good and evil, there are laws that must be followed by all. Musk is not above the law, and Brazil is not a digital colony.


September 1, 2024, the platform X remains offline in Brazil. With nearly 22 million users in the country, the issue is of significant proportions. The media has been reporting moment by moment on the battle between billionaire Elon Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The platform’s outage is due to a court order, while Musk responds by portraying himself as a victim defending "freedom of speech." Who is in the right in this clash? Let's analyze what is happening.

Writer, Poet, Philosopher, Alchemist - Psychedelic Artist -

The X of the Matter

Written by

Editions

Share

Details

stay ahead with our newsletter