The Latin American Report # 218 (Lula vs. Elon Musk: Round 1)

The head of the Union Attorney General's Office in Brazil discussed today a publication on X by Musk, in which the influential and also controversial tycoon took a stand against a local judicial measure related to the—or his?—renowned social media platform. X Corp announced yesterday that it had been "forced by [Brazilian] court decisions" to block an unspecified number of "popular" profiles, without going into details due to legal restrictions. The company added that the Brazilian justice system had "threatened" it with "daily fines" if it failed to comply with the order. "This [Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes] has applied massive fines [and] threatened to arrest our employees and cut off access to X in Brazil," denounced Musk, who this Sunday reinforced the bet against the judge. "We will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit," he said.

The head of legal affairs at the Palácio do Planalto​ said that "[it is] urgent to regulate social networks [as] we cannot live in a society in which billionaires domiciled abroad have control of the networks and claim to be able to violate the rule of law and breach court orders, and threaten our authorities," referring to another message in which Musk demanded the resignation of de Moraes. The Supreme Court Justice is in charge of an investigation into organizations allegedly spreading false information on social networks, which has focused on the electoral period, where former president Jair Bolsonaro denied the reliability of the Brazilian electronic voting system. What I share just below has been amplified by that powerful loudspeaker that is Musk's personal X account. I am an enemy of any violation of the rule of law, and in general terms also of censorship, although it seems to me that Shellenberger is too hasty in defining as "unconstitutional" some demands of the Brazilian justice system.

The Brazilian debate around how to combat the epidemic of fake news/disinformation was quite tense last year, especially since both dynamics' potential impact on the South American edition of the U.S. January 6 nightmare. A bill evaluated in Congress last year implies that social media companies would have the responsibility to identify and remove fake news or illegitimate content from their platforms, among other controversial aspects. I understand that we have a problem here that is not solved anywhere. Besides the fact that many times what we understand as "fake" is simply a problem of perspective, that is, quite subjective. But what to do when we reach definitive assessments about the falsity of certain content? Censor it or discuss it? How many people read fact-checkings? Power to big tech or power to governments? Is decentralization good per se in this issue? Isn't the underlying problem cultural?

Update on the diplomatic crisis between Mexico and Ecuador

A total of 20 countries in the Americas—including the United States and Canada—and 10 European nations—not counting the EU as an entity—backed Mexico following the raid by Ecuadorian security forces on the Aztec embassy in Quito, which led to the severing of diplomatic relations. President Daniel Noboa gave the go-ahead to extract former vice-president Jorge Glas, a political figure battered by accusations and convictions for corruption, and who had an arrest warrant for a new case. The Ecuadorian government appealed to the fallacious narrative that there was a "real risk of imminent flight", as Mexico would never have taken that step. Glas, who since December had been staying—as a "guest"—at the headquarters of the Mexican diplomatic mission, had finally obtained the status of political asylum, in a sort of response of the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the expulsion of its ambassador in Ecuador. This measure in turn responded to controversial and indeed unfortunate statements of the Mexican president on the potential relationship between the murder in August last year of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio and the unexpected landing of Noboa in the Carondelet Palace.

"Starting tomorrow we are going to the [International Court of Justice] where we are presenting this sad case (...) We believe we can [win it] quickly," said the former secretary general of ECLAC and now head of AMLO's foreign portfolio. Following the matrix of the international repercussions of the events, former Bolivian President Evo Morales is pressuring La Paz to follow in the footsteps of Daniel Ortega—anyway branded a "hypocrite" by his opposition—, who emulated the Mexican decision by breaking relations with Ecuador. The UN Secretary-General also expressed his alarm at the events, alleging that diplomatic buildings and their personnel enjoy "a cardinal principle of inviolability (which) must be respected in all cases, following international law". Back to the internal debate in the South American country, important political impacts are already noticeable, such as the correísta bloc turning to the opposition in the national Congress, after being collaborative with Noboa's political force so far.

And this is all for our report today. I have referenced the sources dynamically in the text, and remember you can learn how and where to follow the LATAM trail news by reading my work here. Have a nice day.