Lula da Silva is especially attacked by candidate Jair Bolsonaro.
Should the electoral bodies of the countries intervene in the debate on social networks when the Internet is supposed to be free?
Special by Cristian Carlos for Peninsula 360 Press.
There is no simple answer to this question. On the one hand, social media platforms are supposed to be free and open environments where people can share their views and opinions. On the other hand, electoral bodies are supposed to ensure that elections are fair and transparent, and that people are not misled or manipulated.
There is a risk that, if electoral bodies intervene too much in the debate on social networks, they will be seen as censoring opinions and stifling freedom of expression. However, if they do not intervene at all, there is a risk that false information and propaganda will proliferate, leading to a situation where elections are not truly free and fair.
Ultimately, each situation will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Social networks impede the exercise of democracy in Brazil, where Lula da Silva and Bolsonaro are vying for the presidency in 2022
It is in this context that the Electoral Justice of Brazil and the electoral process of the presidential election of October 3, 2020, decided to sign agreements with different social networks and digital platforms to combat the dissemination of false information.
For the magistrate of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), MarÃa Claudia Bucchianeri, she said that there are "characteristics in the new technologies that can be used for good or for bad". Bucchianeri said that the agreements signed with companies such as Facebook and Google "are important instruments to avoid the dissemination of false information".
There are already examples of social networks impeding the exercise of democracy in Brazil. We have already seen how accounts were blocked, others deleted and flooded with false news.
Last August 2, the former minister for Women, Family and Human Rights, Damares Alves on Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, attacked Lula "for bad governance".
Roberto de Souza Rocha, better known as "Latino" in Brazil, has also taken to social media to show his preference for Bolsonaro.
Lula da Silva is criticized in social networks, but he is a favorite in the polls for president.
President Lula da Silva, who is leading the polls for the presidential elections, is being criticized on social networks. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who is second in the polls, has campaigned against Lula, calling him an "ex-convict." This is misleading.
Lula was convicted in a process that many jurists and even the Supreme Court itself considered flawed and full of irregularities. For this reason, he was released from prison after serving 581 days, having been arrested in April 2018.
Lula da Silva is especially attacked by candidate Jair Bolsonaro.
Social networks have always been used for political positioning.
Social networks have always been used for political positioning. In many cases, they have been used to spread false information, fake news or even "fake friends".
In this context, the TSE and the presidential candidates have found a way to combat the dissemination of false information. The magistrate Maria Claudia Bucchianeri, determined the immediate withdrawal of the statements against Lula da Silva falsified by Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of Jair Bolsonaro.
These acts "have to be quickly repressed by the electoral justice", affirmed the magistrate of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), in charge of the electoral process to elect a president in October. Yes, she used the word "repression" when referring to the acts of publication in social networks in falsehood; however, "repression" and Internet should never go hand in hand.
Should there be any kind of repression on the Internet by governments?
There is no easy answer to this question. On the one hand, the Internet is a powerful tool that can be used for good, allowing people to connect and share information in ways that were previously impossible. On the other hand, the same openness that makes the Internet a positive force can also be exploited by those with malicious intent, and government attempts to regulate the Internet have often been met with criticism.
One could argue that governments should not repress anything on the Internet, as this would be a violation of freedom of expression, or one could argue that there are certain types of content that should be regulated or even censored by governments, in order to protect citizens from harm.
One might well believe that governments should not interfere with the free flow of information on the Internet. After all, the Internet is a global platform that should be open to everyone. However, it is also thought that there should be some level of government regulation to prevent the dissemination of harmful or illegal content. Ultimately, it is up to each government to decide what level of regulation, if any, is appropriate for their country.
The debate is still open
It is important to remember that social networks are platforms and not sole proprietors, so they cannot be held responsible for the content shared on them. It is necessary that the law establishes how to regulate them, protecting the rights of Internet users and preventing censorship of content that may be false, but is not illegal.
The TSE has agreements with companies such as Google, Facebook and WhatsApp to detect false news and information that may violate the electoral process. These statutes, in addition to confidential and internal, indicate what to do when false news is published on their platforms.
Ideally, at election time, companies should be extremely vigilant about the content posted on their platforms. Fake news can easily spread and cause confusion, so it is crucial to take measures to prevent it from circulating.
One way to do this is to fact-check any content that is posted, especially if it seems questionable. If something is found to be false, it can be removed or flagged as such. In addition, it is a good idea to promote reliable sources of information and discourage the sharing of unverified content.
It is also important to be aware of potential foreign interference in elections. In 2016, Russia used social media to spread disinformation in an attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election. Companies should be on the lookout for similar activity and take steps to protect against it.
Overall, it is critical for companies to be proactive in the fight against fake news during the election period. By taking steps to review content and promote reliable sources of information, they can help ensure that voters receive accurate information.
You may be interested in: What is at stake in Brazil on October 2?
