CAROLINA TAYLOR CASTRO DOS SANTOS

Brazil

global winners 2025

Democracy at Risk: The Role of Social Media in Fueling Extremism

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire’s words resonate chillingly in the digital age, where online misinformation and hate speech can drive people to commit unthinkable acts of violence. In the early hours of January 8, 2023, Brazil’s democracy faced an existential crisis. Supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed Brasília, vandalizing the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidential Palace. Their violent actions were fueled by months of conspiracy theories and inflammatory rhetoric spreading across social media. This insurrection was not an isolated event—it was the predictable result of unchecked digital extremism, where falsehoods, left to fester, spilled over into the physical world. This pattern is not unique to Brazil. From the United States to Myanmar, India to Germany, the spread of harmful content online has incited violence, discrimination, and societal division. What was once seen as a localized issue has revealed itself as a growing global threat, transcending borders and highlighting the urgent need for a collective, international approach to regulation. Today’s challenge is not whether online speech should be regulated, but how to do so without suppressing legitimate discourse. Striking a balance between protecting freedom of expression and preventing digital platforms from becoming breeding grounds for violence is essential to preserving democracy in the modern era.

The January 8 riots in Brazil mirror the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack in the United States, where mobs driven by false claims of election fraud attempted to subvert democratic processes. Both events exemplify how unchecked online misinformation can escalate into real-world violence. A 2023 study by the University of São Paulo found that during Brazil’s 2022 elections, misinformation surged on platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, spreading far faster than fact-checking efforts could contain. The spread of falsehoods—claims of rigged votes and government conspiracies—fueled a sense of urgency and rage, leading people to justify their violent actions as a defense of democracy. Beyond political extremism, online hate speech has inflicted deep harm on marginalized communities in Brazil. Research into the January 8, 2023, insurrection revealed that many involved in the riots had actively participated in online groups where extremist rhetoric had been nurtured for months. The country’s long-standing issues with racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance have found new life in the digital sphere. ObservaDH reported over 293,000 cases of online hate speech between 2017 and 2022, with more than 76,000 involving direct incitement to violence. Additionally, during the 2022 elections, hate speech targeting Indigenous populations and the LGBTQ+ community surged, reflecting how political polarization often intensifies discrimination. From xenophobia to religious intolerance and misogyny, these online environments cultivate hostility and encourage perpetrators to act on their hatred. One particularly alarming example was the rise of anti-Northeastern sentiment online. After Bolsonaro's defeat, Northeastern voters—who overwhelmingly supported Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—were subjected to an avalanche of xenophobic slurs, with some posts even advocating violence. These digital attacks mirrored historical patterns of regional prejudice but were amplified to an unprecedented scale by social media algorithms designed to prioritize engagement over safety.

Recognizing the dangers of unregulated digital spaces, Brazil has taken steps to address the spread of online misinformation and hate speech, with the Fake News Bill (PL 2630/2020) aiming to compel social media platforms to act more aggressively against harmful content through increased transparency requirements, stricter content moderation, and accountability measures. This legislative effort reflects a broader global struggle, as the consequences of digital extremism are not confined to Brazil. In Myanmar, Facebook’s algorithm inadvertently amplified hate speech that fueled the Rohingya genocide, while in India, viral misinformation on WhatsApp has sparked deadly mob lynchings. Germany has grappled with a resurgence of neo-Nazi groups organizing online, and the UK has struggled to contain conspiracy theories that inspired violent plots. These examples illustrate a troubling pattern: when harmful online narratives go unregulated, they metastasize into tangible threats against human life and democratic stability, across every continent and political system. Brazil can learn from international efforts like the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates the removal of harmful content within strict timeframes , and Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), which fines platforms for failing to remove illegal content. Achieving a balance between freedom of expression and public safety requires a multifaceted approach. Tech companies must enhance content moderation, employing advanced detection systems to identify and mitigate harmful content, while ensuring transparency to avoid accusations of arbitrary censorship. Independent oversight bodies, composed of legal experts, human rights advocates, and technologists, could serve as impartial regulators, holding digital platforms accountable without succumbing to political influence. Algorithmic transparency is crucial, as social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement often amplify sensationalist content, including hate speech and misinformation. Platforms should be required to disclose how their algorithms influence content visibility and reform their systems to prioritize credible information over viral content. In addition, investing in global digital literacy programs would empower users worldwide to critically assess online content, recognize manipulation tactics, and resist misinformation. Strengthening fact-checking initiatives across regions could help counter false narratives before they spread. Given the borderless nature of the internet, international cooperation remains vital; countries must collaborate to establish shared standards for content regulation, ensuring policies protect public safety without disproportionately restricting speech. Ultimately, addressing digital extremism is not a localized issue but a global challenge, one that requires thoughtful, collaborative, and rights-respecting solutions from governments, tech companies, and civil society alike. The 2021 EU-wide regulation of hate speech on platforms like Facebook and Twitter demonstrates that such cooperative efforts can be effective in addressing harmful online content while maintaining democratic principles.

However, any regulation must be careful to avoid unintentionally silencing legitimate dissent—a risk highlighted by critics who argue that poorly designed laws could become instruments of censorship, targeting political opponents under the guise of combating misinformation. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes captured this complexity when he asserted that social networks must not become “lawless lands” where harmful ideologies thrive unchecked, emphasizing that the solution lies not in suppressing voices, but in preventing speech from being weaponized against democracy itself. In the wake of the January 8 attacks, Moraes became a vocal proponent of stronger online regulation, launching investigations into platform administrators and influencers who spread extremist content. While his actions were praised by some as necessary for preserving public order, they also sparked intense debate, with critics warning of judicial overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties. This tension illustrates the fragile line between protecting democracy and inadvertently stifling it, especially in a country with a history of authoritarianism. For many, the fear is that empowering state authorities to control online speech, even with the intent to curb extremism, could easily be manipulated to silence dissent and reinforce political agendas. In a nation still grappling with the legacy of dictatorship, the possibility of sliding toward censorship is a legitimate concern, making it imperative that any regulatory framework is implemented with rigorous oversight, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to safeguarding human rights.

The evidence is clear: the unchecked spread of harmful content online is a threat to democracy and public order. In the face of rising digital extremism, the imperative to regulate online spaces has become undeniable. However, achieving an effective balance between upholding freedom of expression and curbing the spread of misinformation and hate speech remains a delicate task. The global nature of the internet means that the consequences of inaction are felt far beyond individual borders, as seen in events from Brazil to Myanmar. While regulatory efforts, like Brazil’s Fake News Bill, show promise, they must be executed cautiously, ensuring that any measures taken do not inadvertently stifle legitimate discourse or empower authoritarian tendencies. Transparent content moderation, international cooperation, and a focus on digital literacy are key components of a holistic strategy that preserves public safety and democratic principles. As societies grapple with the complexities of digital governance, the need for collaboration across governments, tech companies, and civil society has never been more pressing. When ignorance and hatred go unchallenged, they do not fade — they fester, waiting for the next moment to strike at the heart of democracy.

Reference List

“A Guide to the Digital Services Act, the EU’s New Law to Rein in Big Tech - AlgorithmWatch.” AlgorithmWatch, 2022, algorithmwatch.org/en/dsa-explained/#:~:text=The%20law%20will%20become%20applicable%20across%20the,designated%20by%20the%20European%20Commission%20in%20April). Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

Barbosa, Francisco. “Xenofobia Contra Nordestinos Revela a Forte Presença Do Racismo No Brasil, Dizem Especialistas.” Brasil de Fato, 7 Oct. 2022, www.brasildefato.com.br/2022/10/07/xenofobia-contra-nordestinos-revela-a-forte-presenca-do-racismo-no-brasil-dizem-especialistas/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

Camazano, Priscila, and Lívia Marra. “Entenda Os Ataques Golpistas de 8 de Janeiro E Seus Desdobramentos.” Folha de S.Paulo, folha.uol.com.br, 7 Feb. 2023, www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2023/02/entenda-os-ataques-golpistas-de-8-de-janeiro-e-seus-desdobramentos.shtml. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

Campos, Ana Maria. “‘O Brasil Não é Terra Sem Lei’, Diz Moraes Sobre Big Techs.” Direito E Justiça, Correio Braziliense, 9 Jan. 2025, www.correiobraziliense.com.br/direito-e-justica/2025/01/7030113-o-brasil-nao-e-terra-sem-lei-diz-moraes-sobre-big-techs.html. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

Creasey, Reuben. “Conspiracy Theorist Guilty of Encouraging Terrorism - Pool Reinsurance.” Pool Reinsurance, 16 Sept. 2024, www.poolre.co.uk/terrorism-threat-publications/conspiracy-theorist-guilty-of-encouraging-terrorism/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

“Crimes de Ódio Têm Crescimento de Até 650% No Primeiro Semestre de 2022.” SaferNet Brasil, 2022, new.safernet.org.br/content/crimes-de-odio-tem-crescimento-de-ate-650-no-primeiro-semestre-de-2022. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

Duignan, Brian. “January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack | Background, Events, Criminal Charges, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 Aug. 2021, www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

“Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech.” The Library of Congress, 2015, www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

Gielow Jacobs, Leslie. “Freedom of Speech and Regulation of Fake News.” The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 70, no. Supplement_1, Oxford University Press (OUP), June 2022, pp. i278–311, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac010. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

Hale, Scott A., et al. “Analyzing Misinformation Claims during the 2022 Brazilian General Election on WhatsApp, Twitter, and Kwai.” ArXiv.org, 2022, arxiv.org/abs/2401.02395. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

“Incitação à Violência Contra a Vida Na Internet Lidera Violações de Direitos Humanos Com Mais de 76 Mil Casos Em Cinco Anos, Aponta ObservaDH.” Ministério Dos Direitos Humanos E Da Cidadania, 23 Jan. 2024, www.gov.br/mdh/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2024/janeiro/incitacao-a-violencia-contra-a-vida-na-internet-lidera-violacoes-de-direitos-humanos-com-mais-de-76-mil-casos-em-cinco-anos-aponta-observadh#:~:text=Os%20crimes%20de%20%C3%B3dio%20na,Crimes%20Cibern%C3%A9ticos%2C%20da%20organiza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20SaferNet. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

“Justice Moraes Says Platforms May Remain in Brazil If They Respect Law.” Agência Brasil, 9 Jan. 2025, agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/justica/noticia/2025-01/justice-moraes-says-platforms-may-remain-brazil-if-they-respect-law?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

“Myanmar: Facebook’s Systems Promoted Violence against Rohingya; Meta Owes Reparations – New Report.” Amnesty International, 29 Sept. 2022, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

Nations, United. “Hate Speech versus Freedom of Speech | United Nations.” United Nations, 2019, www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

News, BBC. “How WhatsApp Helped Turn an Indian Village into a Lynch Mob.” Bbc.com, BBC News, 18 July 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

Ozawa, Joao V. S., et al. “Brazilian Capitol Attack: The Interaction between Bolsonaro’s Supporters’ Content, WhatsApp, Twitter, and News Media.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics, and Public Policy, Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-137. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

“PL Das Fake News: Os 10 Pontos Principais Para Entender O Projeto de Lei | Politize!” Politize.com.br, 3 May 2023, www.politize.com.br/pl-das-fake-news/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

“The EU Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online.” European Commission, 2023, commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

Wong, Vicky. “Germany: Scholz Warns against Rise of Neo-Nazi Networks.” Bbc.com, BBC News, 27 Jan. 2024, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68117813. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.