A new regulation from the Supreme Court holds Meta, X, and other online platforms accountable for content and user safety, setting Brazil on a collision course with the Trump administration.

On Thursday, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that digital platforms are responsible for users’ content — a major shift in a country where millions rely on apps like WhatsApp, Instagram, and YouTube every day.

The ruling, which goes into effect within weeks, mandates tech giants including Google, X, and Meta to monitor and remove content involving hate speech, racism, and incitement to violence. If the companies can show they took steps to remove such content expeditiously, they will not be held liable, the justices said.

Brazil has long clashed with Big Tech platforms. In 2017, then-congresswoman Maria do Rosário sued Google over YouTube videos that wrongly accused her of defending crimes. Google didn’t remove the clips right away, kicking off a legal debate over whether companies should only be punished if they ignore a judge.

In 2023, following violent protests largely organized online by supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, authorities began pushing harder to stop what they saw as dangerous behavior spreading through social networks.

    • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      1·
      56 minutes ago

      I just don’t see how smaller social groups like forums or fedi stuff can survive if they need to potentially fight legal battles too.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      291·
      18 hours ago

      It will make it extremely risky from a liability standpoint to operate any platform that allows user content.

      The EFF has a bunch of writeups on these types of laws. This is the last of a 4-part series on them: Link

      Fediverse operators would for example be extremely vulnerable to lawsuits, because almost none of them can afford teams of lawyers to deal with claims, true or not, that they failed to enforce content policies.

      Depending on how the laws are written, anyone who could find a piece of objectionable content (which will vary by jurisdiction) could sue the platforms. This makes it very appealing as a route to shut down platforms you dislike, especially if they’re niche.

      It consolidates power under large corporations like Meta and Xitter, who can afford to handle legal threats.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        3·
        5 hours ago

        It also makes those large corporate platforms unappealing, which is a very good thing for those of us who have always said that federation is a half-step towards proper decentralization.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      10·
      16 hours ago

      Consider a Brazilian Lemmy instance. They will have to remove everything anyone complains about.

      There’s no way to tell legitimate requests from illegitimate and as soon as volunteer admins are overwhelmed with requests, they will have to automatically delete any post that they are notified about.

      All the power is on the side of the complainant. Nonprofit Lemmy hosts would go bankrupt in minutes trying to fight it.