Elon Musk's growing influence over global politics and digital governance is becoming increasingly apparent as he continues to leverage his platform, X (formerly Twitter), to form alliances with right-wing political leaders in pursuit of his business interests. In Brazil, this strategy has significant implications for national sovereignty and the regulation of digital platforms, as evidenced by his confrontation with Brazil’s Supreme Court and Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

Recently, Musk directly defied the court’s orders to moderate content on his platform, which included the spread of explicit disinformation and hate speech. While he has consistently complied with court rulings in various countries without alleging censorship, Musk has positioned himself against what he deems unlawful interventions and threats to freedom of speech.

A New York Times investigation details a broader strategy by Musk: to wield his influence in support of political leaders who may benefit his economic interests, such as Javier Milei in Argentina and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Musk not only uses X to bolster these leaders but also seeks significant corporate advantages. For instance, in Argentina, he has a vested interest in the country's lithium reserves, a critical resource for the batteries used in Tesla’s electric vehicles. In Brazil, Musk is keen on expanding Starlink, SpaceX's satellite internet platform.

The presentation of the "Twitter Files" on Brazil to the U.S. Congress exposed Musk’s potential political objectives. These allegations, which Musk used to launch attacks on Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Brazilian democracy, were later debunked by Brazilian legal experts such as Estela Aranha. She clarified that the supposed threats were related to a legitimate investigation by the São Paulo Public Prosecutor's Office against members of the PCC (Brazil’s largest organized crime syndicate), and did not directly involve the Supreme Court or issues of freedom of expression. This incident underscores the need for greater accountability for corporations that manage essential public communication platforms.

The Musk vs. Moraes dispute transcends content moderation; it is a matter of a State’s ability to enforce its laws and regulations in the face of powerful global digital corporations that often operate with minimal accountability. This case reinforces the necessity for stricter and more coordinated regulation of digital platforms, considering not only freedom of expression but also the integrity of democracy and transparency. This is more than a clash between a global corporation and a nation-state; it is a microcosm of the ongoing struggle to regulate the digital space, where the tensions between freedom of expression, national sovereignty, and corporate accountability continue to challenge public authorities and civil society. This situation demands critical reflection on how social media companies should function across different legal and cultural contexts while upholding human rights.

Photo: Outras Palavras