Open Forum #39 Multistakeholder approach to platform regulation in Brazil

Summary

This open forum, organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), focused on the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil. The consultation, which received input from various stakeholders, addressed three main axes: who to regulate, what to regulate, and how to regulate. Key topics discussed included platform definitions, risk mapping, and governance models for regulation.

Speakers from different sectors provided insights on the consultation’s outcomes and current regulatory challenges. The academic perspective highlighted the importance of considering digital health platforms in regulation discussions. The government representative emphasized digital sovereignty and the need for platforms to comply with national laws. Civil society stressed the urgency of platform regulation to protect democracy and human rights, while also mentioning ongoing legislative initiatives in Brazil.

The private sector perspective, represented by Meta, emphasized the positive contributions of digital platforms to the economy and society, cautioning against over-regulation that could stifle these benefits. The discussion also touched on current debates in Brazil, including the potential changes to the Marco Civil da Internet by the Supreme Court.

Participants agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in developing platform regulations. The consultation was seen as a valuable contribution to ongoing debates, providing a comprehensive overview of different perspectives on platform regulation. The forum concluded with a call for continued engagement and dialogue among all stakeholders to address the complex challenges of regulating digital platforms while balancing innovation, economic growth, and the protection of rights and democracy.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Results of CGI.br’s public consultation on regulating digital platforms in Brazil

– Current legislative and judicial developments related to platform regulation in Brazil

– Balancing the benefits and risks of digital platforms

– Digital sovereignty and compliance with national laws

– Multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance and platform regulation

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to present and discuss the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation conducted by CGI.br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee). The goal was to share insights from this multi-stakeholder process and explore how it could inform ongoing regulatory efforts in Brazil and beyond.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and constructive, with speakers from different sectors sharing their perspectives on the consultation results and current regulatory challenges. While there were some differences in viewpoints, particularly between industry and civil society representatives, the tone remained respectful and focused on finding common ground. Towards the end, there was a sense of optimism about continuing multi-stakeholder dialogue on these issues.

Speakers

– Henrique Faulhaber: Board member of CGIBR (Brazilian Internet Committee)

– Juliano Cappi: CGI.BR secretariat

– Juliana Oms: CGI.BR secretariat

– Marcelo Fornazin: Board member of CGI.BR representing the scientific community, researcher at the National School of Public Health of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz)

– Eugenio Vargas Garcia: Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

– Bia Barbosa: Board member of CGI.BR representing civil society, member of Jiracom (Right to Communication and Democracy)

– Monica Guise: Head of public policy for Meta in Brazil

Additional speakers:

– Rafael Evangelista: Mentioned but not present due to visa issues

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) organised an open forum to discuss the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil. The consultation, which gathered input from various stakeholders, addressed three main axes: who to regulate, what to regulate, and how to regulate. Henrique Faulhaber, a CGI.br board member, emphasized the importance of this multi-stakeholder approach in developing effective platform regulation.

Consultation Process and Outcomes

Juliano Cappi from the CGI.br secretariat highlighted that the consultation process successfully gathered diverse perspectives from multiple stakeholders. The consultation results provided a comprehensive overview of different viewpoints on platform regulation, serving as a valuable contribution to ongoing debates in Brazil and potentially beyond. Eugenio Garcia from Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned that a book compiling the consultation results was made available at the forum.

Regulatory Approaches and Challenges

The discussion revealed varying perspectives on the approach to platform regulation. Bia Barbosa, representing civil society, stressed the urgency of economic regulation to address market concentration and negative externalities of platform business models. In contrast, Monica Guise from Meta emphasised the need for a balanced approach that considers both the risks and benefits of digital platforms. She cautioned against over-regulation that could stifle the positive contributions of platforms to the economy and society.

Henrique Faulhaber suggested a middle ground, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach to find a balance in regulation. This partial agreement among speakers highlighted the complexity of developing regulatory frameworks that address concerns while preserving innovation and economic growth.

Positive Contributions of Digital Platforms

Monica Guise highlighted the significant positive impacts of digital platforms on society and the economy. She emphasized their role in enabling free speech, supporting democratic movements, and fostering economic opportunities, particularly for small businesses. Guise stressed the importance of preserving these benefits while addressing regulatory concerns.

Digital Sovereignty and Democracy

Eugenio Garcia introduced the concept of digital sovereignty, relating it to self-determination over a country’s digital future. He recounted an incident where the X platform (formerly Twitter) openly defied Brazilian legislation, arguing that such behavior was unacceptable and emphasizing the importance of platforms complying with national laws.

Bia Barbosa raised concerns about risks to democracy stemming from platform business models, highlighting the need for regulation to protect democratic processes. This difference in viewpoints underscored the challenge of balancing national sovereignty, free speech, and democratic safeguards in platform regulation.

Content Moderation and Free Speech

The discussion touched on the contentious issue of content moderation and preserving free speech online. Monica Guise expressed concerns about potential changes to internet liability rules by the Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly regarding Article 19 of Marco Civil da Internet. She emphasized the importance of preserving safeguards for free speech online while acknowledging the need for responsible content moderation.

Henrique Faulhaber agreed on the need for a balanced approach to content moderation, recognizing the complexity of the issue. The exchange highlighted the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty, as well as the challenges of enforcing local legal frameworks on international platforms.

Ongoing Legislative and Judicial Developments

The forum addressed current debates in Brazil, including potential changes to the Marco Civil da Internet by the Supreme Court. Monica Guise stressed the urgency of legislative action on platform regulation, warning about the consequences of regulatory gaps and the risks of other branches of government stepping in when the legislature fails to act.

Bia Barbosa mentioned ongoing legislative initiatives in Brazil related to platform regulation, particularly Bill 2630, emphasizing the importance of these efforts in protecting democracy and human rights. She also noted the Supreme Court’s ongoing discussion of Article 19 of Marco Civil.

Platformization of Public Services

Juliano Cappi introduced the concept of the “platform state,” highlighting the need for regulation of public services that are becoming increasingly platformized. This observation raised important questions about the changing nature of citizen engagement with public services and the role of digital platforms in governance.

The forum concluded by acknowledging the complexity of platform regulation and the need for continued dialogue among all stakeholders to address the diverse challenges and opportunities presented by digital platforms in Brazil and globally.

Henrique Faulhaber: They opened it on the table, didn’t they? It’s about to start. Hello. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone, to the Open Forum Mutze Code Approach to Platform Regulation Brazil. My name is Henrique Falhaber. I’m one of the board members of CGIBR, the Brazilian Internet Committee. First, I would like to thank the IGF organizers and everyone present today here and online. A special thanks to our speakers who contributed to our debate. The CGIBR, the Brazilian Internet Committee, is composed of representatives from the government, corporate sector, the third sector, and the academic community, forming a unique internet governance model that ensures effective societal participation. This Open Forum aims to present and discuss the consultation conducted by CGI and its systematization, which provides both a qualified and in-depth basis for regulating digital platforms. As you know, the regulation of digital platforms has gained global relevance in Brazil. in recent years, with various countries approving or debating regulatory models. However, due to their complexity and scope, reaching consensus has proven difficult, particularly in developing countries like Brazil. Silicon platforms are extremely diverse in size, services, business, and models and impacts, both positive and negative. While platforms play important roles such as connecting business and users, they also pose significant risks, both presumed and proven, that affect markets, economies, human rights, democracy, public health, and many other areas. Concerns are especially focused on large platforms that provide indispensable services such as search, social engineering, and social networks. The complexity and scope of platform activities, coupled with the diverse interests involved, make it a challenge to agree on an ideal regulatory model. In this context of ongoing disputes and disagreements, ensuring broad societal participation to achieve a multi-stakeholder consensus is of utmost importance. With this in mind, CGIBR decided to conduct an open consultation in the regulation of digital platforms in Brazil. This consultation is the result of over two years of work by CGIBR Platform Regulation Work Group, this group here, which I coordinate. It has engaged with society through seminars, workshops. studies and we launched and systematized through 2023. This consultation that we present today address platform definitions and classification, maps the risks posed by platform activities, explores regulatory measures to mitigate these risks and outlines the actors and mechanisms necessary for implementation regulation. We hope that CGI-BR historical role in fostering multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus building on internet-related issues will contribute to developing a consensus regulatory framework for platform regulation in Brazil. Today our open forum features six speakers. First we have Juliano Capi and Juliana Homes from the CGI-BR secretariat. After that you have Marcelo Formazin, a colleague of mine representing the academic and technical sector. After that Bia Barbosa, also a CGI-BR board member representing cyber society. After that Eugênio Garcia from Brazil Ministry of Foreign Affairs who holds a permanent invite position on our board. And at the end Mónica Guiz from META, representing the private sector on those discussions. This CGI-BR advisory team will briefly present the structure and main results of the consultation. This will be followed by contribution from the other speakers here, from the four sectors that participate in the building of the consultation. We are also very happy to to show, to launch here the publication of the systematization of the consultation here at the IGF. We provide some copies to you if you want to know more deeply the details of the consultation by itself. So, Juliano will start. Juliano and Juliana will start with a summary of the consultation. Please.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you very much, Henrique. Well, I’d like to start speaking of an important aspect of every consultation, which is the social participation. A consultation only fulfills itself if society really participates in its proposition. Despite you may produce good questions and good structures and a good dynamic for the consultation, if the social participation doesn’t happen, consultation fails. Then, I’d like to highlight that this consultation had really high rates of social participation. It received nearly 1,400 inputs from 140 organizations from the four sectors that comprises the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the CGI, the LBR, the government sector, third sector, business sector, and the scientific and technical community. The third sector. And the scientific and technical community sent most of the inputs with 41% and 39.5% of the total, respectively. The business sector accounted for 15% of the inputs and the government sector, only 4% as it was expected. It worth mentioning about the broad diversity of perspectives. Different positions arose not only between the different sectors but also inside all represented sectors. What provided the consultation a representative map of the understanding of digital platform regulation challenges in Brazil in 2023. Finally, it’s relevant to mention the quality of inputs. Organizations smear to produce good and quality contributions for the consultation. CGI.br aimed at providing a meaningful contribution to the challenge of producing a piece of regulation for digital platforms in Brazil. It was defined three essential elements to the task. The first element was the definition of the regulated entity. The second element was to have a good definition of the problems that should be addressed. For that, we used the first stage of a risk-based regulation model, which is to map risks the regulated entity activity exposes to society. The third element was to establish a governance model to implement the regulation. Then we defined three main questions, one for each axis of the consultation structure. First, who to regulate, define the regulated entity, second, what to regulate, to define the problems we’d like to address and finally, how to regulate, to define a governance model to implement this challenging regulation. So the consultation was structured into these three axes. In axis one, we presented a qualitative summary of the inputs received on who to regulate in response to questions about the object and scope of regulation, including different definitions, typologies and fields of activities of digital platforms. In chapter two, the chapter summarizes the inputs on what to regulate involving questions about the risks arising from digital platforms activities and possible mitigation measures. The risks were organized into four main groups. First, risks related to threats to competition, economic and data concentration. Second, risks related to threats to digital sovereignty, technological development and innovation. Third, risks related to threats to decent work and the last one, but not least important, risks related to threats to democracy and human rights. In chapter three, we presented a quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the inputs on how to regulate digital platforms and the possible institutional arrangements to regulate them considering both state regulation models and different approaches to self-regulation. Next, please.

Juliana Oms: Thank you, Juliano and Henrique. I’ll talk a little bit about the first axis, that the inputs were about the scope of the regulation, so they were debating about definitions of platform regulation and also which platforms to regulate. We divided these inputs in three categories. The first was definition, and inside this also were divided in three categories. The first is infrastructure. The participants mentioned that platforms need a technological infrastructure and use a variety of terminologies such as digital, electronic and internet. The second characteristic is actors and their relationship on the platforms. In this part, the participants highlighted that platforms are characterized by connecting groups and producing benefits to each group participant in the platform, and on network effects and also highlighting the market. Lastly, also some characteristics were pointed out by the participants as shared or essential characteristics to define platforms, like data intensive use, the use of artificial intelligence technologies and network effects. These characteristics were also highlighted later in the risks mapping as something that would intensify the risks. We also analyzed platform typologies, as you can see examples in the slide. And these typologies that arise in the contributions may be used to determine the scope of possible regulatory initiatives or to divide them into sector regulation as such a regulation to public platforms or to food platforms and it goes on. Lastly, the third part of this axis one is a discussion about asymmetry regulation and there was a broad consensus in the consultation that regulation must be asymmetric except if representations of large platforms associations but in some this means that most people think that some actors in the digital ecosystem should be objects of specific regulatory provisions. There was also some agreement that no criteria should be used individually. The criteria you can see here like market share, core services, number of users and they should not be used individually but used in combination and usually gatekeeper was seen as encompassing all these other criteria. This is for axis one. In axis two, that was … Hi, are you listening, okay. In the inputs on axis two, what to regulate, the first group of risks presented in there is about risks and measures associated with the abuse of market power and economic concentration. This was one of the topics that received most attention from the participants and it’s interesting to notice that there was a clear difference in the approach of two different groups. First part of the private sector, particularly those associations representing digital platforms, argued that digital platforms are characterized by fast innovation, intense competition, constant change. In that sense, they didn’t see those risks as relevant, also because they think the Brazil has a robust competition system, defense system, so it wouldn’t be necessary to make any changes. On the other hand, there was a strong consensus among the third sector, the government sector and the scientific and technological community, and also some part of the private sector, such as media associations, internet providers, on the relevance of the risks mapped. This group mentioned platform characteristics such as network externalities and anti-competitive strategies such as self-preferencing or aggressive acquisitions that contribute to establishing monopoly power and its abuse. It was also highlighted an interesting dynamic between those risks, that data processing and infrastructure concentration is seen as a risk that contributes to another risk, risk that is market concentration and economic power abuse. These dynamics build and lock in effect to big platforms and a winner-takes-all dynamic, resulting in the detriment of product and server quality innovation and alternative models in the vision of this group of actors. Considering all these map risks, the participants debated a myriad of measures to mitigate these risks. And we also see again this same division between these two groups. In part, the groups connected to associations of digital platforms, they think that the defense competition system is enough to combat abuses. And that is usually provisions that function after the issue happens. So they don’t see any need for change. However, the other group that I mentioned see the need for new regulatory measures from an economic and competition perspective. And a lot of measures that you can see in the slide were discussed. Especially, I would like to highlight that data interoperability was a big consensus in the consultation, even between platforms, but there was divergence on how this would be implemented. Also, on the other hand, policies to promote alternative models like policies to innovation and alternatives to those large platforms such as not-for-profit or local models were highlighted only by participants from the third sector and the scientific and technological community. So there was not the same division as before.

Juliano Cappi: Considering the human rights… No, hold on. The human rights… structure. The vast majority of inputs mentioned threats to freedom of expression, access to reliable information, cultural diversity, and democracy expressed by several challenging issues such as disinformation, the rise of extremism, hate speech, and incitement of violence. Risks to quality journalism were also highlighted. There was a consensus that fighting infodemics involves strengthening journalism, an important mechanism to ensure citizens’ access to information. Regarding democracy and the electoral process, there was a broad consensus on the relevance of digital platforms in the construction of public debate. The powerful influence of digital social media on public debate poses risks domination of public discourse. Relative to children and adolescents, several inputs addressed the vulnerability of this age group to digital platforms business models, emphasizing the absolute priority of protecting their rights. From the point of view of counterfeiting measures, there were three issues that could be highlighted. Restrictions on data collection and profiling, considering principles and specific contexts, for example, child use of digital platforms. Restriction on programmatic advertising. Transparency measures and intermediary reliability based on the principle of systemic risks of the platform activities. Finally, the last axis on governance. We analyzed that the inputs suggested that approaches are essentially defined by two conceptual vectors. The first vector discusses whether states or private sector should have a protagonist role, while the second considers whether the locus of decision-making should be concentrated in a single institution or decentralized across several entities and actors. Strict self-regulation, for instance, would have little or no state protagonism and a decentralized decision-making locus, as it would be dispersed across digital platforms. In contrast, in regulated self-regulation, the locus of decision-making would be concentrated in a single private self-regulatory entity and the state would have little protagonism. I guess those are the quick highlights of the main results of the consultation. And I give back the floor for Henrique Fallhaber.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Juliano and Juliana. After this summary of our consultation, I now give the floor to our speakers representing different sectors. Each of you will have eight minutes to share your comments on the consultation process and results. As well, you are free to make any statement about any of our current issues related to digital platforms in Brazil. We did this consultation last year and, as you know, one year from now there are several situations and events regarding platform regulation that should be commented here, so you are free to do that. as you will. So, you start with Marcelo Formazin, our board member from the academic and scientific community. Marcelo, the floor is yours. Thank you, Enrique. Good afternoon, everyone. My

Speaker 1: name is Marcelo Formazin. I’m on the board of members at the Brazilian Internet Stream Committee, the CGE.br, representing the scientific community. And I’m also a researcher at the National School of Public Health of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. I’m here replacing our colleague, Rafael Evangelista, who could not join us today due to visa issues while traveling from Sao Paulo to Riyadh. And I’d like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to speak in this session. I congratulate the working group at CGI and the CGI staff for this relevant outcome you presented here. It’s a very important contribution for the discussion on platforms in Brazil and worldwide. And just to point some comments here, beyond this amazing study on platform regulation, the Brazilian CGI also conducted other studies on digital platforms. One focuses on the role of platforms in education, analyzing the growing presence of platforms in public education systems in other countries. And another study explores the fair remuneration of journalists by platforms. You can access this information at the website CGI.br. Today, I will focus on… So, my comments will make a parallel between platform regulations and the regulation of digital health that I am studying and researching at Fiocruz, which our study on digital health examines the implications of digital technologies for health, especially the platformization of health. Fiocruz is a Brazilian public health institution dedicated to advancing knowledge and technologies to support the Brazilian health system, now a Sistema Único de Saúde, or SUS, you call. While improving the population’s health and quality of life, this is the mission of Fiocruz. Fiocruz sees digital health technology as essential tools for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. My research is supported by the Fiocruz Office for the 23rd Agenda, which aims to align Fiocruz and the Brazilian SUS with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Just a brief on digital health and how it relates to platforms. When you think about digitalization in health or digital health, we see that this field brought significant changes to health systems worldwide, especially Brazilian public and university health systems, SUS. But what does this mean, digital health, in practice? It includes telehealth consultations, which allow patients to connect with professionals remotely and enable professionals to consult other specialists, professionals, wearable devices and self-monitoring technologies, which generate a vast amount of personal data in new formats, integration and analysis of health data, creating opportunities for epidemiological surveillance, disease prevention, health promotion and improved healthcare. Digitalization in health is not entirely new. It began in the 1960s and has evolved over the decades. However, the past 10 years have seen a rapid growth in internet-mediated healthcare and data usage. transforming how healthcare is delivered. Like other sector, healthcare is undergoing a significant changes due to the rise of platforms, a trend we call platformization of health. While these advancements offer opportunities to expand the healthcare services, they also bring critical risks that need to careful attention. It’s worth to mention that the economic effects of digital health were not extensively studied yet. And this study from TGI on digital platforms regulation is relevant for other sectors such as healthcare. A brief on the Brazilian health system or SUS. We developed the Brazilian SUS in the 80s. Today have more than 30 years of the public health system in Brazil. And it’s based that health, the comprehensive principle of health that recognizes health is determined by social conditions like food, housing, education, income, environment, work, transportation, and the access to healthcare. So healthcare is linked to every other aspect of our life. And the SUS has some key principles. We can mention universality, equity, integrity, decentering, management, and social participation. And we can see that in Brazil, the healthcare responsibilities are shared. The SUS is managed by three levels of government, municipal, state, and national, and include participations from government officials, healthcare workers, and seats in two health councils and conference. This shared governance reinforces the deliberative democracy in healthcare in Brazil. Brazil has also a private healthcare market organized as an insurance market. And today, 25% of Brazilians, 50 million people in average, use private insurance, but often rely on SUS for vaccinations, high cost treatments. epidemiological surveillance, and public health campaigns. Meanwhile, 75% of the Brazilian population depend exclusively on SUS, or unfortunately, faces irregular access to health care through philanthropic provision. So we have many problems for delivering health care in Brazil. And five years ago, Brazil launched a new digital health strategy aligned with the World Health Organization Global Strategy on Digital Health. By leveraging digital technology and data analytics, these initiatives aims to transform the Brazilian health care system and improve health outcomes for the population. As part of this strategy, digital health strategy, key programs have been developed to enhance health care service through technology and data. The Connect SUS program focuses on digitizing health care process, improving communication, and enhancing coordination among the health care providers. Informatics in primary care supports primary care providers by offering digital tools and resources to improve patient care and management at local level. And the National Health Data Network centralizes and standardizes personal health data, potentially enabling better decision-making and data interoperability. Finally, the digital health strategy promotes mobile applications to provide citizens with easier access to health care service and information. This we understand that’s going to the direction of platformization of health care. And while digital tools bring potential benefits, you must ask some questions. Who owns the infrastructure and data? And who truly benefits from these changes? In our study at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, we examined the Brazilian digital health strategy using platform studies approach to address these questions. We identified that three dynamics are driving the platformization of digital health in Brazil. The first one is data concentration. Health data is increasingly addressed as a commodity. often concentrated in the hands of a few entities. The second one is the privatization of public infrastructure. Public health data infrastructure is increasingly managed by private platforms. The third one is the shift as the user as a consumer. Citizens are shifting from active participants in public health governments to consumers of health care service. These dynamics risks fragment health care practice and undermine the integrality of health care system. Moreover, offering digital services in a country with an equal internet access could create barriers to access universal health system. Our research also highlights parallels between Brazil and the other countries, such as United Kingdom and Denmark, where public health systems are influenced by private interests. In Brazil, the public health data today is stored on Amazon Web Services without a clear evidence of compliance with national data protection law. Similarly, in the UK, the company Palantir, now for its links to intelligent service, manages NHS data, raising concerns about how this data is being used. Social participation is also a key principle for the Brazilian health care systems, designed to involve the population policymaking process related to health care service. This principle highlights the importance of community engagement and empowering in promoting health and ensuring that services meet the needs of the population. In recent years, discussion about digital health in Brazil have primarily taken place in two spaces. One is the manager committee on digital health, currently limited to government officials’ representations. And the second one is the commit of information standards in private health, which included private health insurance companies and the health care providers, unions, with no participations of users. With the digitalization of services and prohibition of these technocratic forums, we may see that participation has shifted. Instead of fostering knowledge, collective decision-making, users are increasingly treated as consumers, who evaluate and engage in digital health services, limiting opportunities for democratic governance. Social movements in Brazil have pushed back against this trend. For instance, the Coalizão de Direitos na Rede has campaigned for stronger safeguards on personal data protection and against risks associated with data sharing. In the last year, civil society organizations proposed a free conference on information and digital health, presenting proposals for the National Health Conference that happened in last July. And this year, under the pressure of social movements, the National Health Council established a technical chamber on digital health, this new space bringing together government, academia, workers and user associations to discuss and shape digital health policies. This evolution highlights the value of multi-stakeholder approaches in platform regulation and digital health governance. Diverse perspectives from government, academia, civil society and public health works are essential for ensuring transparency, accountability and protection of citizen rights. So finishing, thank you for your attention and I’ll be happy to discuss with all of you about the regulation of platforms.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Marcelo, for the overview of digital health systems in Brazil. We believe that our work on digital platform regulation should be applied in some respect to that particular field. So next, I will have Eugênio Garcia from the Foreign Affairs Minister that will have the floor. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Hello. Hello. Thank you so much and congratulations for this event and thank you for the CGI Brazil Internet Steering Committee for organizing this session. I hope my microphone works to the very end. This is a consultation that was held and as a multi-stakeholder exercise, you see. Let’s go back and start all over again. Now thank you so much for this invitation and congratulations on this event and the CGI Brazil Internet Steering Committee. Thank you for organizing this session. By the way, we have hard copies available of the book on the consultations here on the table if you want to take one of them or also download the PDF or the electronic version of the book. It’s also available and this is, as I said in the beginning, a very important exercise in terms of multi-stakeholderism that we take multi-stakeholder model very seriously. And by the way, you might be also interested to note that we have the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines adopted early this year in Sao Paulo during the NetMundial Plus 10. I think all IGF participants interested in the GTC implementation and also the WSIS Plus 20 review process would be interested in having a look if you are not familiar with the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. They are also available and you can also access the CGI website for more information on that as a footnote, but very important in terms of IGF debates. And we have been busy in Brazil this year with the G20, as you know, including the working group on the digital economy, where some issues were discussed, including universal and meaningful connectivity, electronic e-government, and also digital public infrastructure and artificial intelligence with an approach that is development-oriented, seeking to reduce inequalities. And I mentioned the G20 because we introduced in this working group on the digital economy the topic of information integrity, which is extremely important as we are discussing digital platforms. And this was the first time the G20 addressed this issue, information integrity, including misinformation, disinformation, fake news, everything in between. And we reached a consensus within the G20 and it was adopted by the end of the, during the ministerial meeting, concluding the work of the digital economy working group. And this is something that we also feel that is not only an important topic to discuss, but also if you see during these consultations, there is a topic that is related to that, which I’d like to highlight, it’s digital sovereignty. And if you take the chapter three of axis two of the book. You see there is a chapter on risks related to threats to digital sovereignty, technological development, and innovation. So everything is related, not only information integrity, but also regulation of digital platforms and digital sovereignty. There is no consensual definition of digital sovereignty. And it’s clear that in the different contributions from academia, civil society, private sector, and other stakeholders, this is clear in the consultation and the outcome. But this is a very rich debate that I invite you to have a look at this chapter 3 of AXIS II. And for example, one possible definition, but not the only one, was submitted during the consultations defining digital sovereignty as the capacity to exercise power and control over digital infrastructure and data and implies understanding the effects, both positive and negative, of each technological choice. Of course, there are many other definitions that were submitted or suggested during the consultation. And in my view, digital sovereignty is related to the rights of self-determination and control over your own digital future. But this is my personal view as a contribution to this debate. In this case, it doesn’t mean digital sovereignty closing our borders or any sort of isolation from international networks or global supply chains. For example, data centers. Let’s suppose… A data center run by a national government with control over the national data or the data of the citizens of this country. Sometimes in Brazil we call it sovereign cloud. In this case you can also, even you can buy hardware from a foreign company, but only you have access to the data within the geographical boundaries of your national territory or jurisdiction. So in terms of its role to relate to data sovereignty. Even if you talk about software, it should reflect your local needs and linguistic and cultural background. And this is a discussion that is interesting to maybe we can go deeper. But talking about digital platforms, which is the main topic of this session, having our digital future controlled by a few tech companies doesn’t look like the best scenario to me. And of course there is a discussion on concentration of power. That’s something that needs to be tackled. And in particular for the developing countries that lack resources, expertise, or the means to be on an equal footing with global private companies. And having said that, Brazil has become one of the most prominent countries leading the defense of democracy and the rule of law from attacks against democratic institutions. You remember not so long ago a temporary ban on the X platform in Brazil due to the lack of compliance with court decisions on suspicious or fake profiles on the X platform in appropriate content and in particular the absence of a legal representative of the foreign company in Brazil. And this was not a question of free speech, but self-defense of democracy and Brazilian institutions under attack by politically motivated actors. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. When we have the decision by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, it was pretty clear that the lack of compliance was undisputed. But when you hear a very famous CEO and billionaire, they refrain from saying his name, but let’s call him Mr. X, a very rich and powerful businessman, mocking Brazilian institutions, openly defying, saying I will not comply with Brazilian legislation. Frankly, this, to my view, this is unacceptable. And for Brazil, as a democratic state, it was a matter, again, of defending the rule of law against attacks from a foreign private company. Basically, the problem would be summarized in one simple sentence. Brazilian law should be respected. That’s all. And just for those who wish to go deeper in this discussion, you can have a look at the Marco Civil, the Internet Civil Framework, which is a very famous contribution in Brazil, the Marco Civil. You see Article 11 says clearly, in any operation involving the collection, storage, safekeeping, and processing of records, personal data, or communications by Internet connection application providers in which at least one of these acts occurs within the national territory. And that’s the point. That’s important. Brazilian legislation, the rights to privacy, protection of personal data, and confidentiality of private communications and records. must be complied with. So basically the Marco Civil, the Internet Civil Framework, it says that Brazilian law should be respected, that’s all. And also Civil Code, or Código Civil, for those Portuguese speaking friends here, Article 1137, a foreign company authorized to operate should be subject to Brazilian laws and courts with regard to acts or operations carried out in Brazil. And there is more, Article 1138, a foreign company authorized to operate is required to have a permanent representative in Brazil with powers to resolve any issues and receive legal summons on behalf of the company. So, maybe to conclude, as I said, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian constitution and happily that this problem was resolved in terms of compliance, the company, in this case, the ex-platform, decide to pay the fines and then appoint a legal representative in Brazil and finally comply with the court decisions by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. Meanwhile, other foreign companies and digital platforms have no problem at all with the judiciary and they have continued their operations normally in Brazil, like, for example, Meta is doing great in Brazil. You know that Brazilians love WhatsApp. They have Facebook. They are all operating normally with no problems at all. So, this is to say that This was very particular and very specific case because it’s relevant for the discussion on digital platform regulation and a very famous, let’s say, CEO that’s well-known everywhere. And then this was the result of the problem that we had to deal with and I’m not going to repeat myself, but anyway, not only Brazilian law should be respected, but also that’s almost the creating an obligation of self-defense of democracy and the rule of law. And this is something that in terms of lessons learned, I think it’s relevant for us to discuss and see how we can avoid or perhaps try to see if such problems don’t happen again. I’ll stop here. Thank you so much.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Eugenio, for your comments on very recent situation that we had in Brazil. In fact, these geopolitical issues regarding action of digital platforms should be discussed deeply and in fact, it’s part of the whole chart of our platform regulation working group. So I will follow to Bia Barbosa. She is also a board member of CGIBI, represents cyber society. Please Bia, you have your eight minutes to give your talk. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much, Eugenio, for your comments on very recent situation that we had in Brazil. In fact, these geopolitical issues regarding action of digital platforms should be discussed

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for an invitation. My name, as Henrique mentioned, is Bia Barbosa. I’m a member of the Brazilian Internet Theory Committee, one of the civil society representatives of our CGI.br and member of Jiracom, Right to Communication and Democracy, a Brazilian NGO that struggles for freedom of expression and communication rights in Brazil. So I would like to offer some thoughts on how the results of our public consultation can contribute to ongoing legislative process in our country and in other as well, of course, considering the current disputes surrounding the regulation of platforms. Firstly, I think that it’s important to say that from the perspective of the civil society, regulating digital platforms, especially social media and search engines, is an urgent task on democratic and human rights agenda in the digital age. It’s a way of ensuring a balance in this market, respect for the digital ecosystem and establishing a regulatory framework that addresses a problem caused by the externalities of the way companies’ business models work. We are talking about an economic sector that, like any other else, must be regulated. And we are talking about sovereignty, not from the perspective of states closing down the Internet or fragmenting the Internet, but in the sense that these are global companies that need to respect democratic legislation adopted by states. In democratic nations, it’s only possible to move toward a digital environment based on human rights, where the exercise of freedom of expression exists and is guaranteed in balance with other fundamental rights if states take the decision to regulate platforms. Regulate not through judicial decisions, which are legitimate and can exist, but through a regulatory framework debated in the Parliament involving all the stakeholders. And this is not even happening currently in our country. I would like to mention a first legislative initiative under discussion in Brazil, which may consider the results of the public consultation, but which in large part has already reflected its concerns and deals with the regulation of social media in relation to transparency and due process in the moderation of harmful and illicit content. The bill 2630, which has been debated since 2020 in Brazil, has been the subject of thousands of hearings and hundreds of contributions from experts in the field. It expands the possibility of holding social media liable, establishes users’ rights to guarantee freedom of expression, establishes sanctions and creates a participatory regulatory institution for monitoring and applying the sanctions in the administrative sphere. Unfortunately, the bill’s approval has been blocked by resistance from the far-right political parties, which claims that the law would violate absolute freedom of expression on social media and also by pressure from platforms that are against the text. We hope, however, that with the new president of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies next year, the text can be discussed again. Another initiative underway in the Brazilian Parliament, which would draw heavily on our public consultation, is Bill 2768 of 2022, which proposes economic regulation of platforms inspired by the European Digital Markets Act, but with a much less detailed text based on antitrust and the defense of competition. According to the Parliamentary proposal in the initiative, it would not be appropriate to put an ex-unit a straightjacket on economic agencies, which a series of absolute prohibitions. And then the bill is focused on mitigating the essential access control of digital platforms. The bill establishes that they will be considered holders of essential access control power when they earn annual operating revenue equal to or greater than $13 million from services offered to the Brazilian public. And among the obligation of these companies, which access control power would be transparency and provision of information to the National Telecommunications Agency on the provision of their services. Isonomic and non-discriminatory treatment when offering services to professional users and end users. Proper use of the data collected in the course of its activities and not refusing to provide access to digital platforms to professional users. The National Telecommunications Agency would impose, could impose measures to mitigate any abuse of economic power, including those related to data portability and interoperability. From the perspective of civil society, the project is weak and makes little progress in relation to existing demands to tackle the economic power of big techs. In this regard, we find much more interesting an initiative launched in October, last October by the Minister of Economics or Finance in Brazil, which presented recommendations for regulatory improvements in the Brazilian antitrust system with regard to digital platforms. Inspired by the paths adopted by England, Japan and above all Germany, all through a robust analysis of the economic and competition aspect of digital platforms, the ministry concluded that competition policies needed to be updated. to keep up with the dynamics and characteristics of digital platforms. The aim of the new regulation would be to promote contestability in markets prone to concentration, ensure governance parameters and management of network effect in the absence of competitive pressure, ensure freedom of choice for users of digital platforms and promote transparency in digital markets. The way forward would be to improve the application of the competition laws enforcing in Brazil, better investigating competitive dynamics and defining specific obligations for problems identified in each case, but also through a legislative project to provide the Administrative Council for Economic Defense with more effective ex-ante tools to designate economic agents of systemic relevance. The Rights on the Network Coalition, for example, which brings together more than 50 civil society organizations, believes that economic regulation is a unique opportunity to deal with the negative externalities of the digital platform’s business models and that the transparency obligations set out in the recommendations must guarantee genuine public scrutiny by commercial and users of the business models imposed by digital platforms. Given the symmetry and dependency between these agencies, transparency obligations must be geared towards the collective interest and those affected by the policies and governance, which in many cases represent abuses on the rights to privacy and data protection and freedom of expression. A draft bill is being discussed by the Federal Government of Brazil and will probably be in 2025. In short, these are just three examples of three processes that release two different axes addressed in our public consultation. There are others such data protection, protection of children’s rights, in the online environment, labor regulation on platforms that are being debated in Brazil and in which the Internet Steering Committee intends to contribute. This is precisely why the results of the consultation have been presented to congressmen and women and members of the government at various meetings held by our team in Brasilia. From civil society, we reinforce the importance of moving forward in the construction of regulation for digital platforms and their centrality in maintaining democracy. This is a fundamental step towards guaranteeing a digital ecosystem that is reliable and attentive to the integrity of information in a context of extreme digitalization, including of our democratic process. I am available for any other further questions and thank you very much for the exchange and the debate.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Bia, from the input from the civil society on those issues. You bring several current discussions on economic regulation of digital platforms and also these comments on the process stopped on the discussion of Bill 2630. Now you will have Mónica from Meta giving the input from the private sector. Meta was participating as well as associations from private sector on the construction of this consultation. And we are very glad to have you, Mónica. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: Hi, can everybody hear me? Yes, thank you.

Speaker 3: Thank you, Henrique, very much for the invitation. Juliano, Juliana as well. It’s a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon, although for me it’s still morning because… Because I haven’t had lunch yet. So for those of you who don’t know me, I’m Monica Guizzi. I’m head of public policy for META in Brazil. We did participate in this specific consultation that was conducted by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and we would like to congratulate CGE on conducting such thorough work, especially when delivering the results. We did not collaborate individually as META, but rather through our trade associations. And I have just a few remarks. I know that we are a little bit short on time, so I’m going to try to make them as brief as possible. CGE’s consultation was mainly structured around the risks of how digital platforms operate, and then proposing regulation that would be addressed to those specific risks raised. So my contribution here today is for us not to lose sight of the contributions as well that the digital platforms that do operate in this space actually have to offer to the Brazilian economy. I personally feel that when we’re focused on risks and then proposed regulations, we sometimes lose sight of the economic, the social, the empowerment benefits that platforms actually have, and have been having for many years now, to the public in general, specifically their users. I can talk of opportunity for businesses. We have seen so many, especially small and medium, but I love the examples that we can bring from small business using our specific platforms to thrive in times, and especially in countries and in economies that do not allow certain groups of people to be in the formal economy. I have been interacting with so many women in Brazil who have their businesses thriving because they’re using our platforms, and that’s just to speak on the business side. In terms of creating opportunities for people, I would love to raise the speech aspect of how having different means to communicate with the general public, of how important having these platforms provide their services is. Very coincidentally, this morning, I had a meeting with a former government member in Tunisia. He was responsible for implementing the transition to Tunisia as a democracy, from dictatorship to democracy. That person was very, very … What’s the word in English? I’m so tired that I’m forgetting. It’s only day three. I’m enthusiastic in saying how much of an important role Facebook played in the revolution that took place in Tunisia, and how if it hadn’t been for Facebook being present at that specific moment, the information wouldn’t have gotten to people and the revolution probably would have had a very different face than it does nowadays. So when the CGI’s consultation raises risks to democracy, I feel that it’s important for us not to lose sight of how important it is for us to keep and maintain and strengthen certain safeguards that the Brazilian law actually has in place, and to hold those for the near future. We’re currently in Brazil facing a situation in which we’re seeing the Supreme Court rule on a very important article of our Marco Civil, which is Article 19. We are risking the Supreme Court to declare that article unconstitutional, meaning that we would be throwing away, I wouldn’t say only 10 years, not just one decade from Marco Civil being adopted, but the many years that come before Marco Civil, in which civil society, the industry, the academics, and international organizations helped us build a very robust conversation around the importance of how we define liability. for internet companies in this age. I’m very, very concerned about the path that we might be taking moving forward from a company perspective. If we were to remove speech in a way that we’re seeing the first opinions that the Supreme Court of Justices are delivering, we would pretty much be removing everything that resembles any risks to the business, especially when we’re talking about countries in which we have a large user base, such as Brazil. The risks would definitely outweigh the economic opportunities. I feel it’s extremely important for us not to lose sight of these types of discussions and not to take the current laws that we have in place for granted. They are constantly on the risk, as we’re seeing in Brazil right now. I feel that CGI’s consultation, especially when it comes to the axis of defending democracy, does a pretty good job at highlighting the importance of defenses such as this one. Also coincidentally, Professor Marcel Leonardi this morning published a very, very interesting article around this specific topic on Estadão. I would suggest… my Brazilian colleagues who speak Portuguese to look it up. And it’s very interesting because he raised 100 lawsuits that have taken place over the last couple of years in which individuals went to the courts in order to have their contents either restored or removed, but mostly removed. And it’s a very interesting analysis of how even the courts diverge in terms of what is an offense, where violations exactly are. So to transfer all of that power to private companies in order to decide what should and should not be spoken on the internet in Brazil seems to me disproportionate. And I can guarantee that digital platforms do not want this type of power in their hands, especially as we’re business oriented. And at the end of the day, the civil liability would undermine the economic benefits very much potentially. So we would be removing so much speech. And I would hate to see the Facebook that has helped Tunisia get out of a non-democratic state, become a place where we will only be looking at recipes and cute pictures of cats and dogs, no matter how much I love looking at cute pictures of… dogs. So I’ll stop here and let the discussion continue. Thank you very much.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Mónica, for your input on the positive side of the use of technology digital platform also because, of course, it’s a vector of growth and economic expansion, so we can’t just talk about the negative side. Thank you also for bringing the discussion about the current discussion on Supreme Court. Bia has already mentioned that the blocking of discussion on Congress on Bill 2630 leave to the Supreme Court. That is discussion today. Today you have the third vote on that issue and everybody’s concerned about to change Marcos’ view of the internet, the view of rights in Brazil, that it’s a landmark on the internet regulation and rights for the users being modified by the Supreme Court. That’s not part of their job. And we are, at the moment, we are, in fact, having votes on making Article 19 unconstitutional. Probably today I expect that Minister Barroso is bringing a more balanced vote, bringing the self-regulation, with regulation approach that we believe that is more aligned with the multisectorial governments that we defend in Brazil with participation of our stakeholders and giving the moderation in hands of the companies, but under certain conditions. So I believe this discussion, as you know, we are in the middle of the road on that discussion. And I believe this kind of session here is good to us to discuss Brazilian issues, but also to let know our colleagues here and from other countries how this discussion is being held in Brazil. So you have some time for questions and also for comments from the speakers. I don’t know if there are questions from the audience or online. There’s no online question. If someone has put a question here on the room, the mic will be available. If not, I will provide to the speakers some time to make your final comments since we discussed not just the process of the consultation, but the results that are put on the table and some very important comments on the actual situation of these issues on Brazil. From the side of the group that will coordinate on platform regulation, we are in this year we have scheduled a seminar in Brazil on the second quarter, bringing back some issues that are more mature now. mainly about economic regulation and also discussion on issues related again to the social media, moderation, this kind of thing that now is discussed on Supreme Court. And we also recognizing that most of discussions regarding platform regulation is now on the arena through the AI bill, AI laws being discussed in Brazil. So, I will give the floor to each of you. I don’t know who wants to speak first, Bia, Monica or Marcel or Eugenio, to make your comments and we’ll, if someone wants to make a question, we’ll be free also to do that. Bia, you can.

Bia Barbosa: Hello, just to come to that, I think that it’s the systematization of the consultation. It’s not simple to read. If you want to, if anybody wants to read the consultation itself is even bigger and more complex. But I think that there are many interesting elements in the different axis of the consultation, even agreeing with Monica that framing it regarding the risks. I think there are many other contributions that we can take it from it, not regarding only the risks that I think that the business models of the platforms brings. But I think that there are many other aspects of the consultation that even us at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee have. haven’t yet dived in. For example, the acts regarding labor rights in platforms is something that is quite present in the consultation. But we haven’t yet started an internal discussion about this topic. And there are bills at the parliament or discussions in the executive branch of the federal government dealing with these topics that I think that we could try to organize ourselves, not only from the Brazilian Internet Committee perspective, but from the governments of internet community in Brazil to contribute to this process. It takes much more energy than we have. But I think that Juliano and Juliana that are organizing these meetings with the parliamentarians and also with the members of the executive of the government can tell us how receptive they are to these ideas. Because when you bring some perspectives from a stakeholder perspective to the debate, I think that it helps us to move forward much more focused on what we agree. And then instead of focusing all the difference that we have, the different positions that we have, of course, it’s going to be a debate. It’s going to be a conflict regulation. But I think that we need to move forward. So I’m pretty optimistic regarding the results that we had the consultation and how it can help not only our work, but the work that everybody that is really interested in having this conversation in the public sphere of at least at the Brazilian landscape, but not only at the Brazilian landscape. I think that many. In the region, for example, in South America and in Latin America are different countries that are dealing with this topic as well are Facing this debate and I think that we can help them with with the systematization of the consultation and only with the positions that we are managed to Form and to establish in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. So it’s an invitation for everybody to read but mostly To debate and to engage in this discussion. Thank you

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Bia. You have about 9 minutes So I invite someone anyone from the from the from speakers to talk and also from the audience Thank you

Juliano Cappi: Thank you, Henrique, and thank you for All the interventions. I found it very interesting what to discuss here today and My perspective I see that We have the platform business, but also we are facing Today the platform state. I don’t say that it’s a platform state because it’s stated lots of several activities and responsibilities that are not platformized but public service are going to platforms and I think that as Bia was But the externalities of this platform models if they are business or if they are public service, we have to take a look to preserve the individual autonomy of citizens and to preserve also public interest of the Society and their sovereigns. I think that it’s important and if we had good regulation, we can be provide business the economic growth and the Create safeguards and I guess the the the consultation was a good mean to take a look on that as we provide the LGPD or general protection data law that’s for public and private We could think about also how we regulate the platformization of states. That would be important because we as individuals looking for risks, we as individuals, we don’t have the means to measure the risks. We have to have some support to measure the risks. We are involved in data sharing, looking on the public health perspective with the environmental problems that we face. It’s important to have the production of knowledge about the risks. And I think the regulation is what you said here, is to promote access to good internet, to significant internet, transparency, accountability and social participation. Because even the state is not the guardian of the good interest. The states should be democratically open to participation, to have civil society oversight on the state activities. This is very important. It’s not only for business that usually people claim platforms, but also for states knowing our behavior as platforms. We have to have this open for social participation in a democratic governance. So these are my ideas relating to our discussion today. And thank you for the session.

Henrique Faulhaber: So we have six minutes. Maybe Monica or Eugênio want to talk something. Yes, thank you.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we should celebrate that we are discussing these issues with the participation and engagement of all sectors of society in Brazil and beyond in a genuine multi-stakeholder exercise. And this is a consultation, a very successful one, on regulation of digital platforms. And maybe to recap what I said for the record. I mention digital sovereignty as an important topic, as the right of self-determination and control over your own digital future, including law enforcement and respect for court decisions based on the Constitution and national legislation at large. So I mentioned the temporary ban of the X platform, which for me was a very unfortunate incident created by a foreign company that refused to comply with Brazilian law. I don’t have much to add to that, but just say that we live in a democratic country, an open society, as was said here, where debate is free. That’s why we are here, and this consultation held by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee is a living example that democracy should and will prevail, always.

Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Mónica? Can you hear me? Thank you. Just as a final, I would like to again congratulate GE, especially the Working Group on Platform Regulation for conducting this work. Yesterday I was in a panel in which I had the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about big tech. I cannot speak for all of my business peers, but I can speak for AMETA. So yesterday I was able to talk about the misconception that many people have that we profit from misinformation, for instance. We don’t. Our advertisers hate it when their ads are placed close to misinformation. Our users don’t want to be in our platforms if they’re not feeling safe. And today I feel that I have the opportunity to talk about another misconception, which is the fact that Meta doesn’t want any regulation. That is not true. We have contributed. To be very honest, we didn’t contribute as a company because we did not have the time to put up a contribution that would pass all the approvals necessary for us to submit on time. That’s why we work through our trades. We’re still a relatively small team. We are for regulation. We want to be part of the discussions. We are seeing in real time today, nowadays, this week, last week, what happens when the Congress doesn’t legislate and when other powers take that task into hands. We’re seeing how badly that can go. So I would like to highlight and reaffirm our commitment to continue advancing in the discussions that can lead to good regulation for not only for the business, but for civil society, for users, for Brazil. So I publicly reaffirm our commitment here in Riki to continue these conversations back home. Thank you.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Monica. I believe we have to wrap up. It was a very good workshop, open forum. So we are glad to have in our dispositions, I mean, the job we’ve done through the working group that puts the consultation, their outcomes on the book that we are delivering today and also for discussions that we have here. that deal with very recent issues that are open, but we feel that together, in a multi-stakeholder approach, we can have success on tackling this difficult task that we have in order to have the benefits and also avoiding the risks of using technology on our lives so deeply. Thank you, everybody. And you have the results on the website of IGF in order that we can, after, work on the results that I believe we have here. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for regulation of digital platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

There is a consensus that digital platforms need regulation, but it should be balanced and developed through a multi-stakeholder approach.

Importance of preserving free speech and democracy online

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

Speakers emphasize the crucial role of digital platforms in enabling free speech and supporting democratic movements, while also highlighting the importance of digital sovereignty.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the risks associated with the platformization of health services, particularly regarding data concentration and the need for transparency and social participation in governance.

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Unexpected Consensus

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Need balanced approach to content moderation

Despite representing different sectors (private and multi-stakeholder), both speakers express concerns about potential changes to internet liability rules by the Supreme Court and advocate for a balanced approach to content moderation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for balanced regulation of digital platforms, preserving free speech and democracy online, addressing risks in digital health, and concerns about changes to internet liability rules.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the need for regulation and the importance of balancing various interests. This suggests that there is potential for collaborative efforts in developing regulatory frameworks for digital platforms in Brazil, but careful negotiation will be needed to address the specific concerns of different stakeholders.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to platform regulation

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Bia Barbosa emphasizes the need for economic regulation to address market concentration and negative externalities, while Monica Guise argues for a balanced approach that doesn’t overlook the benefits platforms provide.

Risks to democracy from platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Risks to democracy from platform business models need addressing

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

Bia Barbosa highlights risks to democracy from platform business models, while Monica Guise emphasizes the positive role platforms play in enabling free speech and supporting democratic movements.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to content moderation

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

While both speakers discuss aspects of digital sovereignty, they unexpectedly diverge on the approach to content moderation. Monica Guise expresses concerns about potential changes to liability rules, while Eugenio Garcia emphasizes the importance of enforcing national legislation, including court decisions on content removal.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to platform regulation, the balance between risks and benefits of platforms, and the role of platforms in democracy and free speech.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there is a general consensus on the need for some form of regulation, speakers differ significantly on the specifics of implementation and the balance between regulation and preserving the benefits of platforms. These differences reflect the complex nature of platform regulation and suggest that finding a universally acceptable approach will be challenging.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for some form of regulation, but differ on the approach. Bia Barbosa advocates for stronger economic regulation, Monica Guise emphasizes balancing benefits and risks, while Henrique Faulhaber suggests a multi-stakeholder approach to find a balance.

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the risks associated with the platformization of health services, particularly regarding data concentration and the need for transparency and social participation in governance.

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Key Takeaways

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) conducted a comprehensive multi-stakeholder consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil

There is a need to balance the benefits of digital platforms with addressing risks and negative externalities of their business models

Digital sovereignty and protecting democracy are key concerns in platform regulation

Health data and the platformization of public services raise new regulatory challenges

Content moderation and preserving free speech online remain contentious issues in Brazil

Resolutions and Action Items

CGI.br plans to hold a seminar in Brazil in the second quarter to further discuss economic regulation and social media moderation

CGI.br will continue engaging with parliamentarians and government officials to provide multi-stakeholder perspectives on platform regulation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate large digital platforms while preserving innovation and economic benefits

Balancing content moderation and free speech protections in platform regulation

Addressing risks of data concentration and privatization in digital health systems

Determining appropriate liability rules for platforms regarding user-generated content

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a ‘regulated self-regulation’ approach that gives platforms some autonomy in content moderation while establishing oversight mechanisms

Focusing regulation on larger platforms with ‘essential access control power’ rather than blanket rules for all digital services

Balancing data interoperability requirements with protections for user privacy and platform intellectual property

When you think about digitalization in health or digital health, we see that this field brought significant changes to health systems worldwide, especially Brazilian public and university health systems, SUS.

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

This comment introduced the important topic of digital health and its impact on public health systems, broadening the discussion beyond just social media platforms.

impact

It led to a deeper exploration of how platform regulation intersects with other critical sectors like healthcare, highlighting the wide-ranging implications of digital platforms.

We identified that three dynamics are driving the platformization of digital health in Brazil. The first one is data concentration. Health data is increasingly addressed as a commodity. often concentrated in the hands of a few entities. The second one is the privatization of public infrastructure. Public health data infrastructure is increasingly managed by private platforms. The third one is the shift as the user as a consumer. Citizens are shifting from active participants in public health governments to consumers of health care service.

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

This comment provided a structured analysis of the key dynamics in digital health platformization, highlighting important concerns about data ownership, privatization, and changing user roles.

impact

It deepened the level of analysis by introducing specific concerns about how platformization affects public health systems and citizen engagement, prompting consideration of these issues in the broader platform regulation discussion.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. When we have the decision by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, it was pretty clear that the lack of compliance was undisputed. But when you hear a very famous CEO and billionaire, they refrain from saying his name, but let’s call him Mr. X, a very rich and powerful businessman, mocking Brazilian institutions, openly defying, saying I will not comply with Brazilian legislation. Frankly, this, to my view, this is unacceptable.

speaker

Eugenio Garcia

reason

This comment brought up a specific recent incident involving a major platform’s non-compliance with Brazilian law, highlighting the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the practical challenges of enforcing national laws on global platforms, emphasizing the importance of digital sovereignty and respect for local legal frameworks.

CGE’s consultation was mainly structured around the risks of how digital platforms operate, and then proposing regulation that would be addressed to those specific risks raised. So my contribution here today is for us not to lose sight of the contributions as well that the digital platforms that do operate in this space actually have to offer to the Brazilian economy.

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

This comment provided a counterbalance to the risk-focused approach of the consultation, reminding participants of the positive contributions of digital platforms.

impact

It broadened the perspective of the discussion, encouraging a more balanced view that considers both the risks and benefits of digital platforms in society and the economy.

We are seeing in real time today, nowadays, this week, last week, what happens when the Congress doesn’t legislate and when other powers take that task into hands. We’re seeing how badly that can go.

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

This comment highlighted the urgency of legislative action on platform regulation, warning about the consequences of regulatory gaps.

impact

It emphasized the importance of proactive legislative engagement in platform regulation, potentially influencing the priorities and approach of stakeholders in the regulatory process.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope beyond just social media platforms to include critical sectors like healthcare, highlighting the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty, and emphasizing the need for balanced regulation that considers both risks and benefits. The discussion evolved from a theoretical exploration of platform regulation to a more nuanced debate that considered practical challenges, cross-sector implications, and the urgency of legislative action. This multifaceted approach enriched the conversation and underscored the complexity of platform regulation in the Brazilian context.

How can the results of the public consultation on digital platform regulation contribute to ongoing legislative processes in Brazil and other countries?

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

This is important to understand how the consultation findings can be applied practically to shape policy and legislation.

How can we balance the risks of digital platforms with their economic and social benefits?

speaker

Monica Guise

explanation

This is crucial for developing balanced regulation that addresses concerns while preserving the positive impacts of platforms.

How can we regulate the ‘platformization’ of public services and government activities?

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

This is important to ensure proper oversight and protection of public interests as government services increasingly adopt platform models.

How can we ensure transparency, accountability, and social participation in both private and public platform governance?

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

This is critical for maintaining democratic oversight and protecting individual rights in an increasingly platform-driven society.

How can we address labor rights issues related to digital platforms?

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

This area requires further discussion and research to ensure fair treatment of workers in the platform economy.

How can we implement data interoperability in a way that balances the interests of all stakeholders?

speaker

Juliana Oms

explanation

There was consensus on the importance of data interoperability, but disagreement on implementation, indicating a need for further research and discussion.