MP Orlando Silva (PCdoB) says the business model of “digital platforms, application providers and social networks is anchored in extremism, which generates more engagement”
After three years of discussion in the National Congress, the bill on fake news has become a priority on the agenda of Palazzo Planalto, but differences remain within the government itself on how to deal with the issue. In an interview with Stadium, the speaker of the bill, federal deputy Orlando Silva (PCdoB-SP), admits that there are “different angles of observation on the same problem”. Among the main points of the PL are the criminalization of fake news, the obligation for technology companies to have their headquarters in the country and the ban on mass shootings in messaging applications.
The project envisages that the promotion or financing of the mass dissemination of messages containing “notoriously untrue facts” and which may compromise the “healthiness” of the electoral process or cause damage to physical integrity are subject to criminal sanction. The penalty is imprisonment from one to three years and a fine. In addition, the platforms will be required to publish regular semi-annual transparency reports with information on the moderation of fake content.
“The business model of these digital platforms, application providers and social networks is anchored in extremism, which generates more engagement,” said Orlando Silva. Read key excerpts from the interview below:
The State Column reported that the government is divided on the fake news bill. Minister Flávio Dino (Justice) has forwarded suggestions to you, but Palazzo Planalto also wishes to submit proposals. Is it difficult to reach a consensus?
I participated in a fruitful meeting with the Civil House, the Institutional Relations Secretariat, the Ministry of Justice, Secom (Secretary of Social Communication) and AGU (Union Attorney General). It is natural that this is the case because it is a transversal, delicate, debated topic all over the world. The government started last month. I sense there is an effort to unify the government’s position. I have already encountered the suggestions of the Ministry of Justice. My expectation is that again this week we will have a unified government position on the PL.
Why is the government divided?
I received the suggestions from the Ministry of Justice. Then the relationship I have with Flávio Dino weighed. I aligned with the claims presented by him. I know these positions are on the government table for unification and they are no longer just the position of the Ministry of Justice and are starting to represent the position of the government.
Are there differences between the Office for the Defense of Democracy and the Ministry of Justice?
I wouldn’t say differences, but there can be different points of view of the same problem. These different angles can offer not necessarily contradictory suggestions. I bet the government will move quickly towards a unified range of proposals. The government started last month and faced a coup attempt in the first week. This creates difficulties in unifying positions.
In an interview with the newspaper O Globo, the Minister of Communications, Paulo Pimenta (PT), questioned the business model of the so-called big techs. How to punish platforms?
The business model of these digital platforms, application providers and social networks is anchored in extremism, which generates more engagement. This is an inevitable debate: what responsibility should these companies have? Today the Internet law in article 19 states that the content must be withdrawn by court decision. This article is completely obsolete. I don’t understand why the STF does not judge the constitutionality of this article. It would be a beacon for debate. Another path would be for legislation to adjust this article to define under which circumstances these companies should be liable. Today they say they withdraw only through a court decision. They wash their hands.
Is the idea to punish the platform that monetizes or promotes disinformation?
The path could be to hold the platform accountable when there is publicity and boosting. It’s one thing for someone to post something on the social network, an idea. Then the platforms say it’s freedom of expression. If it’s not illegal content, no problem. But if paid fake news is published in a company, and that company projects it into a reach it never would have had, that’s another matter. Companies cannot be partners in spreading disinformation, fake news and hate speech. Whenever there are incentives, sponsorships and earnings, the platform has to take responsibility. When there is promotion or sponsorship, it is as if there is an edition by the platform. They are the ones who establish the algorithms that give more or less reach to these contents.
Who will ultimately define what fake news and disinformation are or are not?
There is no established concept of what disinformation is. In the PL that I report, another 85 projects are attached. Eight deputies tried to establish a concept on disinformation, none of them succeeded. There is no consensus even internationally on what constitutes disinformation. For this we value the defense of freedom of expression so that the user can challenge the moderation of content that must be done by digital platforms, but this must be done with motivated acts. We are now discussing mechanisms to review the accountability of these platforms. Identify and remove pedophile and racist content. You need to create mechanisms to control information and moderate content from there. These companies have built-in technology to filter misinformation. It is clear that great care is needed so that published content that is freedom of expression is not removed. But parameters are needed to combat illegal content. The January 8th summons was clearly an incitement to a coup.
Is there an example of criminalization of disinformation in other countries?
Not in text (from the project) criminalization of fake news. The criminal type joins gangs that use robots to spread notoriously untrue facts.
Critics of the bill such as journalist Glenn Greenwald question whether there is a credible institution or authority to enact what is true. Understanding, would the “Lula” fake news law be used by Bolsonaro to persecute opponents?
There is no Lula law, but a debate in the National Congress. It is natural for any government to participate. During the Bolsonaro government, I, as a speaker, sat down with groups from various ministries to listen. It is not fair to say that there is a Lula law. There is no proposal from Lula on the table. This debate takes place all over the world. Glenn’s position sometimes absolutizes freedom of expression. It is as if freedom of expression is above all, above all, and untouchable. But nothing is absolute, not even freedom of expression. There is an individual right and a public interest when preparing legislation.
How to avoid arbitrary evaluations in the definition of fake news?
I have no doubt that a lot of care and discretion is needed. If we request content on digital platforms to be monitored, this could pose risks to freedom of expression. If in doubt, these companies will remove the content. Is there any kind of risk? There is. But Brazilian civil society is active, critical and follows the government. The media has reliable content. There are a number of regulatory agencies that are new. It is the ecosystem of production and dissemination of information that will act as a counterweight so that, without having a ministry of truth, we create mechanisms so that there is no form of censorship. I bet this ecosystem has professional journalism and fact-checking agencies, which should be valued. Not because there is a concept of disinformation that you can’t vote on at all.
Does the lack of a legal framework for disinformation weaken the debate?
It has no law. What critics are talking about, especially those who have a liberal vision, is to absolutize freedom of expression as an untouchable and independent right from malignant uses to attack democracy. It is true that there is no established concept of what disinformation is.
The PL has been ongoing since 2020. Do you believe the PL will advance in the current legislature?
The PL ran for 3 months in the Senate and passed, but under a barrage of criticism. They said the Senate has not made the debate public. This has also been criticized by international organizations. The Chamber opted for holding public hearings, seminars, bilateral meetings and meetings with specialists for 2 years. In 2022 we arrived at a text that could be presented in plenary, but there was a great mobilization of the previous government and big tech to prevent it. Changed the government, which is in favor of voting. And the European Union passed legislation that created a new standard for regulating platforms. If it’s valid in Europe, it can be valid in Brazil. January 8 proved that it is not possible to leave moderation solely the responsibility of the platforms. The coup attempt was staged on the rails.
What are the expectations for the plenary vote on the PL?
There is political time. There should be talks this week. President Arthur Lira is due to meet with leaders to set the date for the vote. Consultations must be made with the benches and also with the Senate. Because the text amended in the House returns to the Senate. It is hoped that the Senate and the House will be aligned.
Will politicians with mandates no longer be able to block followers and journalists?
We have created a concept of public interest accounts, which are public agent accounts. It is not the citizen, but the deputy, the manager and the mayor. Citizens can block whoever they want, but not public agents. Must be open to receiving criticism. If he is the target of attack or injury, let the person sue.
What about parliamentary immunity?
Let’s extend the provisions of the Constitution to social networks: parliamentary immunity protects the opinions and votes of deputies. There is the evil of people who think it is to protect. Immunity is valid in Parliament, on the networks and in the stands, but it cannot be used to hide a crime or a criminal.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
