this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025

76 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

39347 readers

255 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Brazil rules that social media platforms are responsible for users’ posts (restofworld.org)

submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

For context:

There's an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly "internet civil framework"), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to "if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn't legally responsible, unless there's a specific judicial order telling it to remove it."

So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it's unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.

I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:

False positives becoming more common.
The burden will be considerably bigger for smaller platforms than bigger ones.
It gives the STF yet another tool for vendetta. The judiciary is already a bit too strong in comparison with the other two powers, and this decision only feeds the beast further.

On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

When something similar happened in the UK, it was pretty much exclusively smaller/niche forums, run by volunteers and donations, that went offline.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

When something similar happened in the UK, it was pretty much exclusively smaller/niche forums, run by volunteers and donations, that went offline.

[Warning, IANAL] I am really not sure if the experience is transposable for two reasons:

UK follows Saxon tribal law, while Brazil follows Roman civil law. I am not sure but I believe the former requires both sides to dig up precedents, and that puts a heavier burden on the smaller side of a legal litigation. While in the later, if you show "ackshyually in that older case the defendant was deemed guilty", all the judge will say is "so? What is written is what matters; if the defendant violated the law or not.".
The Americas in general are notorious for sloppy law enforcement. Specially Brazil. Doubly so when both parties are random nobodies.

So there's still a huge room for smaller forums to survive, or even thrive. It all depends on how the STF enforces it. For example it might take into account that a team of volunteers has less liability because their ability to remove random junk from the internet is lower than some megacorpo from the middle of nowhere.

Additionally, it might be possible the legislative screeches at the judiciary, and releases some additional law that does practically the same as that article 19, except it doesn't leave room for the judiciary to claim it's unconstitutional. Because, like, as I said the judiciary is a bit too powerful, but the other powers still can fight back, specially the legislative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for the context and analysis. Hope it works out for smaller forums.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I hope so, too. Their current situation isn't currently the best (a lot of them went away in the late 10s, simply because people were using them less); I'm kind of hoping to see a revival, but that's at the mercy of the STF, so I can't completely rule out that the situation will evolve exactly like in the UK. It's "let's wait and see", you know?

I'm also wondering the impact of that on chatrooms, that used to be extremely popular here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Wasn't that because of age verification though?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

No. It was also down to holding them potentially viable for what their users post.

A forum about hamsters shut down.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm unsure how I feel about this. I think whether this is beneficial or a net negative will end up depending entirely on how it is enforced.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

What do you think could be negative about it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

It works only for big tech. Small forums, for example, often can't comply with such regulations.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 19 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 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.