(This is an English version of the text originally published by Gazeta do Povo on Friday, August 30, 2024)
It cannot be repeated enough: only in dictatorships has the X/Twitter platform been prevented from working. In all cases, for reasons related to government censorship and control of information, to keep the population ignorant and/or intimidated, and to persecute political opponents. So to ensure the perpetuation of a project of power.
In China, for instance, Twitter has been blocked since 2009. The Chinese government strictly controls the internet and social networks to prevent the dissemination of content considered subversive or “disinformation”.
In Iran, the platform was blocked after it was widely used during the post-election protests, also in 2009. The Iranian government did this to silence and persecute opponents and repress any dissent.
North Korea needs no comment.
Temporary X/Twitter blocking has already been carried out in Turkey, Nigeria and Myanmar, in response to protests or criticism of the government, or even for “national security reasons”, “defense of democracy” and “disinformation control”.
The excuses are always the same. And in all these cases, it must be said, the blocking were “legal”, since they were authorized by the corresponding judicial powers.
In a similar way, Maduro's re-election can also be considered “legal”, since the Venezuelan judiciary, in a sovereign country, says so. The problem is that everyone knows that the election was a fraud. In other words, something can be both “legal” and fraudulent, or criminal, therefore legal and illegal at the same time. Faced with paradoxes like this, the people lose respect for the institutions.
In dictatorships, institutions are at the service of information control. This is an indispensable tool for preventing the spread of ideas that could challenge the dictators’ authority. In such regimes, fear and the law of silence prevail. Anyone who dares to disagree with the government knows that they risk imprisonment, or worse.
X/Twitter currently has around 20 million active users in Brazil. The country is one of the platform largest markets, with a significant base of engaged users who use the social network to discuss topics such as politics, entertainment, sports and current affairs. It’s an island of free speech.
In addition, X provides access to independent information – at a time when the credibility of the mainstream media and traditional sources of information is at rock bottom. Hence it plays a fundamental role in the health of our democracy. Of course, it also facilitates the organization of protests and the dissemination of criticism to the government, but this should be considered normal and healthy.
Twitter is today the main arena for public debate on the Brazilian internet, with independent information flowing freely from the far left to the far right. Its banning would represent an unprecedented information blackout, as well as a massive and radical interdiction of the free and democratic clash of ideas. Such a measure would have consequences that are difficult to even imagine.
It will always be possible to find excuses and legal justifications for extreme measures like blocking Twitter. It will always be possible to try to demonize Elon Musk by claiming that he is a threat to democracy.
But the fact is that there is no democracy on the planet worthy of the name in which Twitter is blocked. Why may only Brazilian democracy be threatened?
But the escalation of insanity is not limited to X/Twitter. Starlink, the internet company by satellite whose Elon Musk is a majority shareholder, has also come under the radar of the punitive and persecutory rage.
Starlink has 215,000 antennas in Brazil. If carried out, the blocking of the company's accounts will jeopardize the internet provision in rural areas and in the most remote regions of the country, where conventional telecommunications infrastructure is unavailable or insufficient. Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians will run the risk of being left without internet access. This includes public schools and hospitals.
But that’s not all. Starlink’s possible departure from the country would lead to a reduction in competition in the telecommunications sector, which would inevitably lead to an increase of prices and a reduction in the quality of the services offered, especially in the poorest regions. The Brazilian people, as always, will be the main losers.
Brazil is going through very sad times, with discredited institutions and a large part of the population is feeling hopeless and afraid. Nothing good can come of this.