X (Twitter) is banned from Brazil in the middle of an electoral race. What’s next?

(This is an English version of the text originally published by Gazeta do Povo on Saturday, August 31th 2024)

X (formerly Twitter), one of the main social networks used by politicians, journalists and voters during the elections, recently fired its entire team in Brazil. The decision came after the Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered that the company’s representative in the country could be arrested if his orders – which X considers illegal – were not complied with. In addition, the justice ordered Twitter to appoint a legal representative in Brazil under penalty of blocking the service, and ordered the blocking of the bank accounts of Starlink, also owned by Elon Musk.

In the end, the minister ordered that X be banned in Brazil. He also ordered a series of other measures which I transcribe from the decision:

(2) The summoning, for compliance within 5 (five) days, and immediately notifying the court, of the companies: (2. 1) APPLE and GOOGLE in Brazil to insert technological obstacles capable of making it impossible for users of the IOS (APPLE) and ANDROID (GOOGLE) systems to use the “X” application and to remove the “X” application from the APPLE STORE and GOOGLE PLAY STORE and, likewise, in relation to applications that enable the use of VPN (‘virtual private network’), such as, for instance: Proton VPN, Express VPN, NordVPN, Surfshark, TOTALVPN, Atlas VPN, Bitdefender VPN;

(2.2) Those who manage backbone access services in Brazil, so that they insert technological obstacles into them that make it impossible to use the “X” application;

(2.3) Internet service providers, in the form of their CEOs, such as ALGAR TELECOM, OI, SKY, LIVE TIM, VIVO, CLARO, NET VIRTUA, GVT, etc., so that they insert technological obstacles capable of making the use of the “X” application unfeasible; and

(2.4) Those who manage personal mobile services and fixed switched telephone services, so that they insert technological obstacles capable of making it impossible to use the “X” application;

(3) APPLICATION OF A DAILY FINE of R$ 50,000.00 (fifty thousand reais) to natural and legal persons who engage in conduct involving the use of technological subterfuges to continue communications through “X”, such as the use of VPN (‘virtual private network’), without prejudice to other civil and criminal sanctions, in accordance with the law.

Summon ELON MUSK, “TWITTER INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED COMPANY” (CNPJ No. 15.493.642/0001-47), “T. I. BRAZIL HOLDINGS LLC” (CNPJ No. 15.437.850/0001-29), ”X BRASIL INTERNET LTDA.” (CNPJ No. 16.954.565/0001-48), “STARLINK BRAZIL HOLDING LTDA.” (CNPJ No. 39.523.686/0001-30) and “STARLINK BRAZIL SERVIÇOS DE INTERNET LTDA.” (CNPJ No. 40.154.884/0001-53), including by electronic means.

The absence of that social network would create a communication gap and could unbalance the electoral dynamic, favoring candidates who dominate other networks or traditional media

The implications could be vast. Here I’ll just focus on the X overthrow. The platform is an essential tool for political communication, allowing candidates to reach voters quickly and directly. In addition, journalists and influencers use it to cover live events and disseminate information. The absence of that social network would create a communication gap and could unbalance the electoral dynamic, favoring candidates who dominate other networks or traditional media.

This scenario reminds us of what happened with Telegram in other international contexts. In Iran, for instance, the app was banned in 2018 on charges of enabling the organization of subversive groups against the regime. Even after the ban, the Iranian government admitted that around 45 million Iranians, more than half of the population, continued to use Telegram, either through VPNs or other clandestine access methods.

The Telegram case in Iran highlights a crucial point: the limited ability of governments to control access to digital platforms in a hyperconnected world. In Brazil, the attempt to block Telegram in 2022 during a clash with the Superior Electoral Court proved to be a logistical and legal challenge. Attempts to communicate officially with those responsible for the app were ignored, and the block never actually took place.

With X banned from Brazil, many users likely will find alternative ways to access it, such as using VPNs, as seen in Iran and Russia, even with the sanctions imposed in the ruling. In the Russian case, Telegram was initially banned in 2018 for not providing information to the government, but resumed its operations in 2020, possibly without ever actually going offline.

The comparison between the Telegram and X cases raises questions about the ability of states to impose its sovereignty on tech giants that operate globally. The situation in Brazil, with X blocked, reflects a clash between national regulatory power and the resistance of digital platforms, which often defy government orders to protect their operating models and operating principles.

With elections approaching, blocking X could have a considerable impact on political communication, making it difficult for voters to access information and limiting the reach of candidates. The decision also sets worrying precedents for freedom of expression and the flow of information in a democratic environment, putting Brazil on the same level as authoritarian regimes that try unsuccessfully to suppress digital dissemination.

The question is whether Brazil would actually be able to implement such a blockade, and more importantly, whether the impacts of this would be manageable in an already polarized and digitally active environment. History shows us, even under state pressure, the internet finds ways to overcome barriers, and a ban could have the opposite of the desired effects, promoting even more distrust and resistance against the institutions involved.

We are facing a landscape where the balance between regulation and digital freedom is becoming a global challenge. The rights of users and the principle of freedom of expression are at the center of the debate. In this case, the problem seems to be the obligation for platforms to have a representative in Brazil, otherwise they cannot operate here. By the way, who is Xvideos’ representative in Brazil?