A Brazilian Supreme Court justice has issued an ultimatum to social media giant X, formerly known as Twitter, instructing them to clarify their apparent failure to fully comply with previous court orders. The directive comes amid an ongoing investigation initiated by Justice Alexandre de Moraes into Elon Musk, who declared his intention to reinstate accounts on X despite judicial directives to block them.
Justice Moraes, citing concerns over constitutional violations in X’s handling of Musk’s case, set a five-day deadline for the platform to respond. The inquiry was sparked by a report from federal police in Brazil, revealing active accounts on X that had been legally instructed to be blocked, contradicting the company’s claims of compliance.
According to the police report, these unblocked accounts retained the ability to attract new local followers and disseminate links for live-streaming videos, raising questions about X’s adherence to judicial orders. Moraes emphasised the urgency of the matter, urging X representatives to address the identified non-compliances detailed in the police report.
Why does it matter?
The development unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over the role of social media platforms in Brazil’s political landscape. Moraes is spearheading investigations into the proliferation of digital disinformation and hate speech, particularly during the tenure of former President Jair Bolsonaro. X’s purported failure to adhere to court orders adds another layer of complexity to ongoing efforts to combat online misinformation and protect democratic processes in Brazil.
Elon Musk’s company, formerly known as Twitter and now called X, is gearing up for a legal battle against the government in Australia. The legal move comes in response to orders demanding the removal of content depicting violence and violent extremism. The content in question involves two recent knife attacks: one resulting in multiple deaths at a shopping centre and another targeting a Christian bishop in his church.
In the wake of these attacks, inflammatory and false information circulated, with a prominent Australian figure using X to wrongly attribute the shopping centre incident to a Jewish man. A mainstream television news outlet also amplified this misinformation by broadcasting false claims. The church attack officially declared a terrorist incident, involved a teenage assailant stabbing an Assyrian bishop, who enjoys a significant following on social media.
Prompted by disseminating graphic footage from these incidents on social media platforms, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, tasked with online safety enforcement, issued orders to remove such content. While X initially attempted to comply with these demands, it later refused to remove the video of the church attack globally, citing the lack of authority for such requests outside of Australia’s jurisdiction. X announced its intention to challenge this directive in court, denouncing it as unlawful and dangerous.
This stance from X has sparked intense criticism from Australian politicians, who advocate for stricter regulations on social media platforms. The clash underscores the ongoing debate surrounding tech companies’ responsibilities in curbing harmful content online and the balance between free speech and preventing violence and misinformation.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted 360 to 58 on a bill that could result in the unprecedented action of shutting down TikTok, a popular social media platform, over concerns related to Chinese influence and data privacy. The bill, authored by Texas Republican representative Michael McCaul, aims to protect Americans, especially children, from what he described as the ‘malign influence of Chinese propaganda’ on TikTok, which he referred to as a ‘spy balloon in Americans’ phones.’
The legislation was passed as part of a broader foreign aid package put forth by House Republican speaker Mike Johnson, which includes support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The updated bill extends the divestment period for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, from six months to a year, a move supported by Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell to allow sufficient time for potential buyers to negotiate a deal.
Following the House’s passage of the bill, TikTok voiced disappointment, emphasising its substantial economic contribution to the US and arguing against what it sees as an infringement on free speech rights. The bill’s broader implications on data privacy and surveillance practices have also drawn criticism from other tech industry figures, including the president of Signal, who warned of potential repercussions extending beyond TikTok to other social media platforms. Despite these concerns, President Joe Biden has indicated his intention to sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate, aligning with his previous statements and ongoing scrutiny of TikTok’s operations.
Portugal’s far-right political party, Chega, has initiated legal action against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, following a 10-year ban imposed on the party’s Facebook account. The reasons behind the ban remain unspecified, raising concerns about potential political censorship across Meta’s platforms.
Led by André Ventura, Chega has gained traction in Portugal with its anti-immigration and anti-establishment rhetoric. Chega has responded by calling the restrictions ‘clearly illegal and of unspeakable persecution’ in a post on X.
Why does it matter?
Chega’s legal action against Meta Platforms underscores broader issues surrounding content moderation and political speech on social media platforms. The outcome of this case may establish precedents for how such platforms are held accountable for their moderation policies and their impact on political discourse (see Iran’s recent case). However, the need for more transparency regarding the reasons for Chega’s ban raises questions about the fairness and consistency of content moderation practices.
Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, assured Brazil’s Supreme Court of its compliance with court rulings following a recent dispute. This declaration comes after Musk challenged Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s directive to block specific accounts in Brazil. In a letter to Moraes last week, X’s Brazilian unit stated its inability to control the parent company’s adherence to Brazilian court orders.
However, X’s lawyers reiterated the platform’s commitment to fully comply with orders from the Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil. This marks a significant shift from Musk’s earlier stance, where he vowed to reverse restrictions imposed by Moraes, citing constitutional concerns and urging the justice to resign.
Moraes responded by launching an inquiry into Musk for obstruction of justice amidst investigations into digital militias accused of spreading fake news during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Additionally, Moraes leads an inquiry into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro. X, facing further scrutiny, disclosed being subpoenaed by the US House Judiciary Committee for information on Brazilian Supreme Court directives regarding content moderation. The platform’s lawyers assured Moraes of cooperation, indicating compliance with the committee’s request and commitment to informing him of developments.
Elon Musk took to social media platform X to reveal that the US House of Representatives has initiated inquiries into actions allegedly breaching Brazilian law. Musk disclosed that X had been requested to suspend the accounts of Brazilian parliament members and numerous journalists. Neither the US House nor X has issued immediate comments in response to these developments.
𝕏 just received an inquiry from the US House of Representatives regarding actions taken in Brazil that were in violation of Brazilian law.
The House’s interest in Musk’s actions arises amid tensions with Brazil’s Supreme Court judge, Alexandre de Moraes. The judge launched an inquiry following Musk’s defiance of a court order to block specific accounts on X. Moraes warned of daily fines amounting to $19,736.32 should X fail to comply with the directive.
The standoff between Musk and Brazilian authorities underscores a clash over free speech principles. Musk, an advocate for unrestricted expression, contested Moraes’s orders as unconstitutional. Despite potential financial ramifications, including revenue loss and office closures in Brazil, Musk stood firm on his stance, prioritising principles over profit.
The situation continues to evolve, highlighting broader implications regarding online platform regulations, freedom of expression, and international legal jurisdictions. As tensions persist between Musk and Brazilian authorities, the outcome of this dispute could have significant ramifications for digital platforms and their operations in various countries.
Malaysia has called upon social media giants Facebook operator Meta and short video platform TikTok to intensify monitoring efforts on their platforms due to a surge in harmful content, as reported by the government. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, authorities referred 51,638 cases to these platforms for further action, a significant increase from the 42,904 cases recorded last year. While specific details on the reported content were not disclosed, the move aims to combat disseminating harmful material online, particularly concerning sensitive topics like race, religion, and royalty.
According to statements from Malaysian regulatory bodies and police, the plea to Meta and TikTok also encompassed the need to address content indicative of coordinated inauthentic behaviour, financial scams, and illegal online gambling. Sensitivity surrounding race and religion in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation with significant ethnic Chinese and Indian populations, underpins the urgency of the government’s call. Additionally, Malaysia’s legal framework includes statutes prohibiting seditious remarks or insults directed at its monarchy, adding further weight to the push for online content regulation.
A dispute between Elon Musk and authorities in Brazil intensified over the weekend as a Supreme Court judge initiated an inquiry into the billionaire’s actions regarding social media accounts. Musk, known for owning platform X (formerly Twitter) and advocating for free speech, contested Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s decision to block specific accounts, citing their alleged unconstitutionality. Despite the lack of disclosure regarding the targeted accounts, Musk declared X’s intention to lift all restrictions, urging Moraes to step down.
Coming shortly, 𝕏 will publish everything demanded by @Alexandre and how those requests violate Brazilian law.
This judge has brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and people of Brazil. He should resign or be impeached.
Justice Moraes, investigating digital misinformation and an alleged coup attempt during former President Jair Bolsonaro’s tenure, responded by including Musk in the probe and accusing him of obstructing justice. In a public statement, Moraes emphasised the court’s orders and threatened fines against X if it failed to comply. Musk, in turn, vowed to challenge the order legally, asserting principles over profit and highlighting what he perceives as judicial overreach.
The clash has drawn political attention, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s government supporting Justice Moraes and condemning Musk’s defiance. Solicitor General Jorge Messias criticised Musk’s actions, advocating for regulations to prevent foreign platforms from disregarding Brazilian laws. This echoes previous regulatory efforts, such as Moraes’s investigation into executives at Telegram and Alphabet last year regarding internet regulation legislation.
Why does it matter?
The standoff underscores broader tensions surrounding online speech, governmental authority, and the role of tech giants in shaping public discourse. As the dispute unfolds, it raises questions about the balance between free expression and regulatory oversight in the digital age, with implications for Brazil’s legal landscape and the global tech industry.
In the first quarter of 2024, Pulse has documented 22 deliberate internet shutdowns across 12 countries, with some ongoing since 2023. This figure matches the peak seen in 2021 during Myanmar‘s military coup, highlighting a concerning trend. India has been the most affected, with nine shutdowns, followed by Ethiopia and Senegal, each experiencing two incidents. Over half of these shutdowns have been localised, impacting specific regions within countries including Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Palestinian Territory and Russia.
Among the recorded events, nine led to nationwide disruptions lasting from hours to months, affecting approximately 297 million internet users and resulting in over 910 days of downtime. These shutdowns have inflicted significant economic losses, amounting to USD 565.4 million in GDP, as reported by Pulse. Such disruptions hinder societal progress, hamper economies, and undermine the stability of the global internet infrastructure.
Why does it matter?
Championing an open and easily accessible internet, advocates stress the significance of prioritising policies that ensure uninterrupted connectivity. Governments and policymakers globally are encouraged to endorse efforts to protect the internet, acknowledging its pivotal role in nurturing economic development and providing opportunities for individuals to exercise fundamental human rights in the digital era.
As reported by Reuters, any information identified as ‘fake or false’ by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) or any other agency authorised for fact-checking by the government would be prohibited if the new rules are adopted. Social media platforms or other ‘online intermediaries’ would be required to ‘make reasonable efforts’ to ensure that their users do not ‘host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share’ information deemed as ‘fake or false’.
