I’m not sure this is a good thing. How will small Brazilian websites and forums be able to comply with these regulations? Sure, Meta and Google can afford to spend millions on content moderation. I don’t know if all sites can. I wonder how it will affect Brazilian lemmy instances, for example.
Brazil's supreme court rules that platforms like Facebook and X can be held liable for user posts, requiring them to remove content even without a court order
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Pro@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://restofworld.org/2025/brazil-social-media-content-ruling/
Comments
gaspar_petersen@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They won’t be able to. Tech laws in Brazil are incredibly archaic and non-sensical so this isn’t even registering with people cause Brazil is so far behind.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Exactly. Imagine if Lemmy instance owners became legally responsible for everything that was posted on their server! Especially with the way federation works - instance admins would be having to de-federate from every other instance on day 1, and would basically have to approve every single comment on every single post to ensure they didn’t get in trouble with the law.
This is a terrible idea. It means a single bad actor could bring down a small social media site by themself really easily just by spamming illegal content and reporting it to the police themselves.
The_v@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The court’s decision also introduced the concept of systemic failure, which holds providers liable when they fail to adopt preventive measures or remove illegal content. Now, platforms will be expected to establish self-regulation policies, ensure transparency in their procedures, and adopt standardized practices.
Pretty sure this would cover Lemmy and most traditional forums as long as they have a written policy and standards that are consistently enforced.
Geodad@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Or just ignore it and never go to Brazil. 🤷♂️
umbraroze@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
On the other hand, I think safe-harbour laws are very much necessary if we want the Internet to work for the positive good of the world. We want the companies to take reasonable precautions and act on problematic stuff if it crops up, but that’s probably enough.
But on the other hand, jeez, have you seen what kind of discussion shitholes Facebook and Twitter have cultivated? If your company is being described as an accessory to genocide, maybe something has already gone horribly wrong.
ICastFist@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
The main problem is that the platforms have a money incentive to keep spam and scam posts online. They pay meta and TikTok for boosts, the scam gets boosted, all done.
Frankly, it seems like the problem could be solved by forcing the platforms to get a Know Your Customer level of information and putting that info on every boosted post, so people know who’s paying for that.
Buuuut, it’s Brazil. Justice and fairness only ever happen as side effects from judges’ decisions
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Its so easy to implement a half-decent KYC these days. Thers a bit of KYC already but it’s so basic any scammedr can get around it all easily.
Meta in particular is so bad. I’ve been reporting straight up scam ads on threads for months now and they’re still there!
ICastFist@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Last week, as this discussion was getting media attention, Meta said that “most of those posts only stay up for 4-8 hours before the (uploader) deletes it”
Dunno how truthful that statement is, but that really shows how easy it is to game their system
MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I think liberal values like free speech, secularism, and tolerance might actually require defending from forces that abuse those values to destroy them. If this is the way to do it, then I think it’s becoming increasingly necessary. The fact of the matter is a lot of people are impressionable according to what they read and see. Society simply cannot function when there are malicious actors intentionally trying to spread divisive hate and misinformation.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Guess the people of Brazil will be losing access to social media platforms soon.
meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Lucky people. They will have a period of mourning and then enter a cultural renaissance.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Nah, most likely the government that enacts these laws will be replaced soon enough by whoever promises to undo the laws.
balder1991@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I wish. My mom is like a zombie on Facebook for maybe 4 years.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If Fakebook or ex-Twatter suddely have to remove all hate-, shit-, and Nazi posts, they would probably be rather … empty?
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
On the one hand, I’m against censorship. But on the other, every bit of content on Facebook and X should be removed and all their hardware run through industrial shredders. It’s quite the conundrum.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Censorship is bad, but Facebook and X’s entire business models revolve around spreading content that is at once false and inflammatory, either just to create engagement or for more malicious purposes, and they reach a huge portion of the population directly, including children, teenagers, the mentally ill and other vulnerable populations. This requires a new understanding of accountability for spreading information.
I wouldn’t agree that it makes sense to hold a Mastodon instance responsible for what its users post, because they don’t have a financial incentive or the ability to promote misinformation at a massive scale. Twitter does. As Aristotle said, we must treat equals equally, and treat the unequal unequally according to the form and extent of their inequality.
balder1991@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The algorithms optimized for engagement with no ethics was the point the world starts going downhill.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s not censorship to hold people accountable for making editorial decisions on media platforms, and as long as FB, Twitter, and others are weighting different kinds of content in their algorithms (which they are), they should be held accountable financially and legally for the consequences.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
What do you think censorship is, exactly?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
it becomes a form of censorship when snall websites and forums shut down because they don’t have the capacity to comply.
this also applies to lemmy, but strictly tech help forums too.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
The same way your right to wave your hands ends before they reach other people's faces, free speech can't include speech infringing on other people's dignity (in the legal/philosophical sense).
Regulating speech within this frame is as bad as stopping a bar fight by dragging the participants away.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Actually, that’s exactly what free speech is for. Nobody needs free speech to tell their neighbor their hair looks nice today.