When digital freedom fuels exclusion

Meta’s recent decision to dismantle its fact-checking program is not an isolated incident but part of a broader strategic narrative that reshapes the boundaries of public discourse under the banner of “freedom of expression.” In a video published on January 7, Mark Zuckerberg described the fact-checking system as "censorious" and asserted that Meta must “return to the roots of freedom.” This rhetoric, however, demands a critical question: freedom for whom, and at what cost?

In the same video, Zuckerberg argued for a less interventionist approach, suggesting that “fact-checkers” were politically biased and had eroded trust rather than building it. Echoing Elon Musk’s rhetoric, Zuckerberg referred to the European Union as a promoter of the “institutionalization of censorship” and Latin America as a stage for “secret tribunals.” These claims, closely aligned with Donald Trump’s populist narrative, signal a concerning shift where powerful platforms like Meta seem to retreat from commitments to transparency and moderation, prioritizing ideological and corporate interests instead.

Replacing professional fact-checking agencies with “community notes” transfers moderation responsibilities to users - a model already shown to be problematic on other platforms, such as X (formerly Twitter). This system, often manipulated by bots and coordinated campaigns, enables the amplification of disinformation and hate speech, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups.

Additionally, the renaming of Messenger themes - changing "Transgender" to "Cotton Candy" and "Non-binary" to "Golden Sunset"- goes beyond aesthetic choices. It symbolizes erasure, reinforcing stigmas and marginalizing LGBTQIA+ communities. For groups already exposed to digital violence, these changes not only reduce spaces for validation and visibility but also legitimize exclusionary narratives. Such actions magnify the impact of hate speech and disinformation, leaving these communities even more exposed.

In Brazil, where digital platforms play a pivotal role in electoral processes and the spread of disinformation, Meta’s relaxed moderation policies could further destabilize the social fabric. In a country marked by stark inequalities, this deregulation risks exacerbating harm to marginalized communities while undermining efforts to combat hate speech and misinformation.

Meta’s decision underscores the urgency of approving Brazil’s PL 2630, known as the “Fake News Bill,” which remains pending in the Chamber of Deputies. This legislation seeks to hold digital platforms accountable, ensuring transparent content moderation and protecting users' fundamental rights. Without robust regulation, companies like Meta continue to operate on their terms, prioritizing profit over collective well-being.

The freedom Meta claims to champion is far from universal; it benefits those already in positions of power to shape narratives while silencing vulnerable voices. The absence of effective regulation allows platforms to reinforce structural inequalities and compromise democratic integrity, particularly during critical moments like Brazil’s 2026 elections.

The last few years, marked by the 2021 Capitol attack and the 2023 invasion of Brazil’s National Congress, are stark reminders: unregulated freedom on digital platforms comes at a huge cost. These events demonstrate how unchecked disinformation and hate speech can fuel violence, destabilize democratic institutions, and deepen polarization. It is imperative to implement strong regulations that hold digital platforms accountable, protect human rights, and foster an inclusive and democratic digital environment.

Regulating digital platforms is not censorship but a matter of social justice and democratic protection. Passing the Fake News Bill and establishing consistent regulatory frameworks are crucial steps to mitigating the harms caused by disinformation and hate speech, creating a safer and more responsible digital space.

The freedom Meta offers comes at a price. As citizens, we must demand greater accountability from platforms, support legislation that curtails corporate overreach, and promote informed dialogue about the future of the digital space. Democracy depends on our collective action to ensure technology is an ally - not a threat - to human rights and equity.