Constitutional lawyer André Marsiglia said that new "duty of care" rules for digital platforms in Brazil could enable censorship on social networks [1].
This development matters because the regulations shift the responsibility of content moderation, potentially forcing companies to prioritize risk avoidance over free expression. If platforms fear government penalties, they may remove legal speech to avoid liability.
Marsiglia said that the new rules for removing content on digital platforms could open space for censorship and self-censorship on social networks [1]. He said that the "duty of care" requirement creates a precarious environment for platforms, particularly during political and electoral debates.
According to Marsiglia, the risk of self-censorship arises when platforms pre-emptively delete lawful content to avoid potential sanctions [1, 2]. This mechanism could stifle public discourse by removing content that is legal under Brazilian law but deemed risky by a platform's internal moderation team.
The lawyer's concerns center on the balance between platform accountability and the constitutional right to free speech [2]. He said that the broad nature of these requirements allows for an interpretation that encourages platforms to over-moderate content to ensure compliance with the federal government decree [2].
Marsiglia said the rules may lead to a systemic removal of content that does not violate any law but falls within the scope of the platforms' perceived duty of care [1].
“New rules for removing content on digital platforms could open space for censorship and self-censorship.”
The introduction of a 'duty of care' standard represents a shift toward proactive moderation. By holding platforms accountable for the presence of harmful content, the Brazilian government may inadvertently incentivize 'over-blocking,' where companies remove legitimate political speech to mitigate legal and financial risks, effectively outsourcing censorship to private entities.
