Executive Summary

This policy brief takes a deep dive into the previous issues between X (formerly Twitter) and the Brazilian government. Tension began when X ignored court orders from the Brazilian government commanding the company to remove social media posts violating misinformation and hate speech rules, leading to its nationwide ban in Brazil. This brief will cover the  history of these two entities, recent developments made, and proposed policy solutions.

Overview

Recently, the tensions between X’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazil reached a breaking point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ requested Musk to name a legal representative for the country. After the 24-hour ultimatum concluded, in which X failed to comply with Moraes’ demands, Anatel (Brazil’s regulator for telecommunications) began the process of removing access to X throughout the country. This became a massive topic in Brazil as around 40 million Brazilians, or one-fifth of the country’s population, consistently accessed X at least once a month prior to the ban. Elon Musk and X fought back, saying that their noncompliance was due to Moraes’ orders being illegal and conflicting with the company’s emphasis on free speech. Elon Musk and X further contended that the Brazilian judge was trying to censor political opponents. After X finally complied with demands to block certain accounts, pay fees, and name a legal representative, it was restored across Brazil.

Pointed Summary

• A disconnect between X, Elon Musk, and Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes led to X being banned in Brazil
• This ban affected around 40 million Brazilians who previously used X regularly
• Questions have arisen regarding which side was correct; this debate centers around what is considered free speech and how much control another government can hold over an American company

History

The path to the eventual ban of X in Brazil began when Supreme Justice Alexandre de Moraes demanded that certain X accounts be removed for spreading political misinformation. Finding that most of these accounts belonged to supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who aligns with right-wing ideals and has been accused of staging a coup, Elon Musk refused. Musk claimed to believe Justice Moraes' request was in violation of Brazilian law as a form of censorship. Musk had previously “complied with similar orders in other countries, such as India,” which may cast doubt upon his stated principle of free speech. 

After threats of arrest and a fine of $3,653 imposed on the X representative in Brazil at the time if she did not comply with removing the accounts, X closed their operations in the country. Justice Moraes then imposed a deadline for X to instate a new representative which X did not meet, leading to its nationwide ban in Brazil on August 30. 

While a slight majority of Brazilians believe Moraes was in the right, many also think the consequences he ordered were extreme. Several groups, including the conservative Partido Novo, asked the Supreme Court to reverse Moraes’ decision, but the Court upheld it. The banning of social media platforms by governments is not uncommon, especially during times of political unrest. In 2014, Turkey banned Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube after audio recordings revealing corruption in President Recep Erdogan’s inner circle were released. This trend has been occurring in other countries such as China which has banned thousands of websites, such as The New York Times, and social media platforms under their Great Firewall plan. It does not look like this trend will stop anytime soon, with countries like Russia and the United States also partaking. 

On October 8, when X completed the three demands from de Moraes—to block from the platform certain accounts that had planned to doxx or harm federal officials, pay over 5 million U.S. dollars in fees, and instate a proper legal representative—the ban was lifted. 

‍

Policy Options

Due to the public nature of X, it will be difficult for Musk to be able to completely oversee what is said on the app. However, there are several courses of action that both Musk and the Brazilian government could take to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. 

First of all, Musk can take more steps toward ensuring accurate information about political candidates and news. A solution to this could be creating colored identification tags on posts that clearly mark whether something is accurate or not, and also whether something is more left or right wing, using reliable AI tools. Another solution that could be implemented is the addition of resources and links to information on accuracy-marked political and election posts, much like the current community notes feature.

Another option for X to ensure accuracy would be to direct users to official government accounts based on tweets that indicate their desire to learn more about politics/elections. X could also restrict the spread of misinformation using keywords that relate to important events, like the results of an election. If detected to include those keywords, there could be a delay for verification before posting. Accounts on X that specifically post about political and governmental issues/events could also be labeled as such and given a public score of their accuracy and reliability. The company could also add a confirmation page before posting tweets that contain sensitive political information, asking users  “Are you sure you would like to post this?” This mechanism could serve as a deterrent for misinformation by allowing users to reevaluate the accuracy and intention behind their post, as they would consider whether or not it’s worth getting potentially flagged. Aside from focusing more on political accuracy on the platform, X could be more proactive regarding threats such as those against the Brazilian government agents by right-wing accounts.

However, the entire responsibility of the crisis is not solely on Musk and X. The Brazilian government could also provide resources for the public in their own media that present Brazilian citizens with verified information, which is more effective than the use of social media as a direct source of information. This could also be done by a neutral third-party source to limit potential bias. Furthermore, international diplomacy could be implemented in the form of a conference on censorship in social media among various governments. 

While this is a nuanced situation, enacting additional measures on both sides can prevent a similar disagreement in the future.

Conclusions

X and the government of Brazil recently entered into a conflict regarding political speech on the platform, which led to its ban in the country. Over the course of several months, X and Justice Alexandre de Moraes went back and forth over X accounts that had been found to be spreading right-wing misinformation and hate on the platform. When ordered to appoint a new legal representative and pay fines, Elon Musk refused, citing his belief in free speech, allowing Moraes to institute a nationwide X ban including fees for any Brazilian citizens found using a VPN to access the site. X eventually agreed to pay outstanding fees and appoint a suitable representative to Brazil, leading to its reinstatement. Ultimately, there are many options for X to be more proactive regarding political misinformation on the platform; more diplomacy from both parties could also prove beneficial. For now, the impact of the ban on the current state of X in Brazil remains to be seen, as competitors like Meta’s Threads and Bluesky gained potentially lasting popularity in its stead.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Eli Solomon, Anagha Nagesh, Nolan Ezzet and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

1. Benedito, Luana Maria. “X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge’s content orders.” Reuters, August 19 2024. https://www.reuters.com/technology/x-close-operations-brazil-effective-immediately-2024-08-17/
2. Benedito, Luana Maria. “Brazil top court lifts Starlink, X bank account freeze after $3 mln transfer.” Reuters, September 13 2024. https://www.reuters.com/technology/brazil-top-court-lifts-starlink-x-account-blockage-after-3-million-transfer-2024-09-13/
3. Budasoff, Eliezer and Viñas, Silvia. “Elon Musk, Brasil y el negocio de la desinformación.” El hilo, August 30 2024. https://elhilo.audio/podcast/brasil-elon-musk-desinformacion/
4. Buschschluter, Vanessa and da Silva, Joao. “Brazil X Ban: Top Court Judges Uphold Block of Musk’s Platform.” BBC News, September 3 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkmpe53l6jo.
5. Ferreira Santos, Sofia. “Musk’s X suspended in Brazil after disinformation row.” BBC News, August 30 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o
6. Hughes, Eleonore and Ortutay, Barbara. “Elon Musk’s X is back in Brazil after its suspension.” AP News, October 9 2024. https://apnews.com/article/brazil-x-platform-musk-suspension-return-44be5cc35225e352b33c8b8c6fa20af2
7. Kolodny, Lora. “Elon Musk’s X expected back online in Brazil ahead of elections.” CNBC, October 8th 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/elon-musks-x-expected-back-online-in-brazil-ahead-of-elections.html

‍

8. Kasapoglu, Cagil. “Turkey Social Media Ban Raises Censorship Fears.” BBC News, April 7 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32204177.
9. Ortutay, Barbara and Savarese, Mauricio. “Brazilian judge suspends Musk’s X for refusing to name a legal representative.” PBS News, August 30 2024. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/brazilian-judge-suspends-musks-x-platform-for-refusing-to-name-a-legal-representative
10. “What you need to know about the X (formerly Twitter) situation in Brazil.” Global Voices Advox, September 7 2024. https://advox.globalvoices.org/2024/09/07/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-x-formerly-twitter-situation-in-brazil/‍
11. Zhang, Adrianna. “China Users on Banned Social Platforms Need Protection, Advocates Say.” Voice of America, February 27 2024. https://www.voanews.com/a/china-users-on-banned-social-platforms-need-protection-advocates-say/7505043.html