Commentary: Brazil takes on Elon Musk in an effort to regulate a weapon of mass disinformation

Elon Musk, the eccentric, far-right billionaire behind X (formerly Twitter), SpaceX and Tesla is testing the world’s willingness to regulate the ultrarich. Billionaires, with money to burn and control over the vital industries that created their wealth, can make great friends and difficult enemies.

But the power that is their appeal is also the reason that governing their actions is so critical. This is even more urgent with Musk since he controls one of the most powerful information distribution mechanisms in the world.

Brazil’s government understands this, and that is why it has been embroiled in a battle with him for months.

It began when a Brazilian court investigated Musk for obstructing justice after X failed to comply with legal orders to block accounts spreading disinformation and hate speech, in accordance with Brazilian law. Facing millions of dollars in fines, Musk responded by shutting down all X offices in Brazil, where it has 22 million users — leaving no one to answer for X’s legal liabilities. This also violated the law, since all foreign companies operating in Brazil must have local legal representation.

As a result, the court suspended X, which the telecoms company has now blocked in the country, and froze financial assets of Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet company, to cover unpaid fines.

This has caused some uproar about violations of free speech. After all, most countries that suspend social media platforms, temporarily or permanently, are dictatorships seeking to obstruct opposition.

The Washington Post Editorial Board cried “authoritarian,” even as it admitted that removing lies that “distort the vote or inspire violence” is the responsible thing to do. It simply thinks governments should trust in the goodwill of billionaires to do it. It’s no coincidence that the Post is owned by another billionaire who bristles at the idea that he, too, should be bound by laws.

But free speech is not an area of absolutes. The idea that governments have no right to regulate dangerous speech is a convenient fantasy for those making billions off it. Defamation has been a criminal offense since at least the early days of English common law some 700 years ago. Regulating speech — such as obscenity, incitement to violence and false advertising — is simply a normal government function.

Brazil had no good options. Shut down the popular platform or give in to Musk’s refusal to let X be governed in any way. The latter is far more dangerous.

Since Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, the platform has become a mecca for mass disinformation. Musk fired most of the content moderation team that worked to keep the worst forms of disinformation at bay. He unblocked accounts that had been blocked for spreading disinformation and extremism. He disabled a feature for reporting electoral disinformation and ended Twitter’s policy for preventing the spread of COVID-19 disinformation too.

Since Musk’s takeover, the content on X changed dramatically. I don’t need experts to tell me. I see evidence of it in my own feed, which algorithms have inexplicably flooded with right-wing propaganda.

This is an annoyance when X promotes views or content I disagree with, but it becomes dangerous when it stokes violence and spreads destabilizing lies. Social media have already fueled violence in Indonesia, Burma, Ethiopia, Kenya, and other countries and communities around the world.

This is not just a problem with Twitter. Facebook and other social media companies struggle with these risks too and discourage regulatory action. But no other company’s leaders have actively shut down tools to rein in dangerous speech or openly fought the very idea of regulation.

One could reasonably debate whether, in buying Twitter, Musk earned the right to use the platform to push his agenda. But laws impose legal limits on that use for public safety. This is what Brazil is trying to enforce. Whether this specific account or that tweet violates those laws is a matter of judicial determination. Brazil’s judiciary is telling Musk he must submit to its application if he wants to keep doing business in Brazil.

Brazil isn’t the only country trying to take X on. The European Union has sparred with Musk and recently brought charges against X under a new social media law to prevent deceit and promote transparency. In the United States, little has been done on the federal level, so some states are taking action. California passed a content moderation law to address disinformation and hate speech, but Musk just won an appeal to partially block it, so the future there remains unclear.

But these efforts suggest a growing concern with the danger of social media and a corresponding willingness to navigate how to address it, even if it means facing off with a brazen billionaire. Brazil alone might not be able to bring Musk to heel. X has a half-billion other users to rely on elsewhere. But by standing up to him, Brazil is showing it can be done.

The news that Starlink has now backed down and agreed to follow court orders to block X, too, suggests that perhaps standing up to Musk is starting to work.

____

Elizabeth Shackelford is senior policy director at Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center for International Understanding and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of“The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

___