13 September 2024
Story of a Death Foretold
On 30 August 2024, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes suspended X (former Twitter) in Brazil. The decision follows a critical deterioration of the relationship between Elon Musk and Brazilian authorities, which became confrontational in April and hit an all-time high point of contention when the tech billionaire closed X's Brazilian office in mid-August. While Musk's attitude towards the Brazilian rule of law can be defined as delinquent, entitled, and anarchist, the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the platform in the country and establish hefty fines for any Brazilian attempting to use a VPN to access it is also controversial. Within the complexity of democratic erosion and digital policy in Brazil, the judicial expansion of power vis-à -vis the struggle against disinformation has been observed at least in the last five years, and the lack of a general legal framework regulating digital platforms supports these immediate but many times inefficient and legitimacy eroding measures. Continue reading >>
0 
15 March 2024
Brazilian Judges Regulate Elections … and AI
Brazil has new regulations on AI and election interference. Also, in Brazil, the judiciary oversees elections. As municipal elections are coming up, we face a quite unique situation of technological challenges, untested laws, and unusual institutional arrangements. Although innovative, these regulations are constrained in their effectiveness and indifference to broader regulatory debates concerning the regulation of AI, showcasing an uncomfortable relationship between judicial and legislative powers regarding digital policy in Brazil. Disregarding the complexity of AI, the regulations legitimise the expansion of the judicial branch's power to deal with digital threats to democracy while not fully engaging with how these threats materialise through the development and use of AI. Continue reading >>
0
15 December 2022
Articulating Legitimacy through Policy Recommendations
On 6 December, Meta's Oversight Board issued a policy advisory opinion on 'cross-check', a content moderation system used by the company to avoid the erroneous removal of content shared by highly influential users on its platforms. Despite the opinion’s directness in calling Meta out for the disproportionate attention paid to corporate interests to the detriment of its human rights commitments, the OB’s decision presents an underlying duplicity, as it criticises policy and design choices replicated in the OB’s own architecture. This curtails the institution's capacity to enhance accountability and legitimacy. Continue reading >>
0