����vlog����

BLOG series:

Notes from the New Frontier of Power 

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement about shifting fact-checking to a model based on community notes has produced considerable international controversy. Beyond the technical aspects of how fact-checking is implemented (which, incidentally, has never worked optimally even by its own standards), the true essence of this announcement is political. Zuckerberg claims to want more political discourse on Facebook, clearly following the rhythm set by Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

This shift is no small matter: it represents an explicit alignment with populist tendencies that aim to dismantle democratic principles and consolidate concentrated power. Politically, this move carries global implications. Trump, with his expansive ambitions, has floated, in a tone no one knows whether to take seriously, the annexation of Canada as another U.S. state. He has even suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America," a glaring ignorance of the fact that America is a continent, not a country. He has also revived outlandish ideas, such as appropriating Greenland and Panama. Meanwhile, Musk joins the game, using his influence to promote the far right in Germany and suggesting changes of government in the United Kingdom from his position of economic and technological power.

What we are witnessing is a dance choreographed by populist governments, with major tech platforms as their primary orchestrators. This phenomenon is not new; we already know that tolerance for inequality and the lack of regulation over concentrated political and corporate power provide fertile ground for populism, nationalism, and political extremism. The 20th century taught us that when confronted with concentrated economic and political power, regulators must take the baton. History has shown us that leaving the music in the hands of corporate interests leads nowhere good.

In Latin America, this interplay between corporate and political power was particularly evident during the dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s. Shock economic policies could only be implemented under the mantle of state terrorism, supported by global powers, including the United States. The reconstruction of societies in the wake of these regimes has been marked by a variety of transitional justice processes aimed at reestablishing democratic norms and institutional frameworks.

That is why one of the final points in Zuckerberg’s speech on January 7th is particularly alarming. He declared that Meta would “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” Zuckerberg specifically criticized Europe for enacting “an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative.” He also accused Latin American countries of operating “secret courts” that compel companies to “quietly take things down.” A statement that evokes memories of the clandestine judicial mechanisms that propped up dictatorships, often in service of economic interests.

However, Zuckerberg’s portrayal ignores the significant progress Latin America has made in building rule of law, which, while imperfect, are arguably more effective than those in many other parts of the world. Brazil, likely the focus of Zuckerberg’s remarks following the temporary ban of X in the country, offers a powerful example. Like the United States, Brazil experienced a political faction that weaponized disinformation to undermine democratic institutions, led by former President Jair Bolsonaro. His administration launched well-orchestrated campaigns to erode confidence in the electoral system, culminating in an insurrection eerily reminiscent of the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. On January 8, 2023, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed government buildings in Brasília in a bid to delegitimize Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s newly elected government.

But where the U.S. response to its insurrection was slow, Brazil took decisive action. The Federal Police compiled extensive evidence against Bolsonaro, leading to an indictment for his role in the attempted coup. By 2023, Bolsonaro had already been barred from running for office, and in February that year, his passport was seized, effectively preventing him from fleeing the country. Bolsonaro’s narrative of victimhood—claiming to be censored by an “authoritarian” Supreme Court—has gained little traction at the national level, as Brazil’s institutions remain resolute in confronting disinformation and holding powerful figures accountable.

In the past, some countries and international actors were appalled by such excesses and managed to silence repressive practices. During the Latin American dictatorships, for instance, Europe showed solidarity with the victims, condemning violations and supporting resistance movements. Today, however, that leadership is not clear. Stunned by pressure and intoxicated by capitalism, regulators in the Global North have failed to respond to companies like Meta and X (formerly Twitter), which, emboldened by Trump, openly proclaim their disdain for regulation and possess a willingness to foster political divisions, fuel populism, and ignite hate.

Another possible explanation for this regulatory inertia is a lack of ideas on how to address the issue. While the phenomenon of political and economic power concentration is not new, the rise of states indirectly influenced by tech companies—wielding vast amounts of data concentrated in private hands and capable of delivering hyper-personalized products and political messaging—poses an unprecedented challenge. Regulators may be grappling not only with the sheer complexity of this reality, but also with the lack of historical parallels to guide their responses.

This shift represents a profound transformation in the mechanisms of control. We are transitioning from the tyrannies of blood and torture, characteristic of authoritarian regimes, to the tyranny of surveillance capitalism, where the tools of dominance are less visible but equally pervasive. These new systems embed themselves deeply in everyday life, shaping individual behavior and societal decision-making in ways that are difficult to detect and even harder to regulate. Faced with this evolving landscape, many regulators and nations that once acted as counterbalances now find themselves bewildered and paralyzed.

While this paralysis is evident in much of the Global North, Latin America offers a compelling contrast. The region demonstrates how proactive governance and judicial mechanisms can address these challenges with determination. Courts in the region are increasingly taking bold steps to enforce the rule of law. From Brazil’s assertive actions against disinformation to Chile’s constitutional protection of neurorights, these efforts represent a dramatic shift for a region that once grappled with the legacies of foreign intervention and authoritarian control. Last year, the Brazilian Supreme Court banned X (formerly Twitter) for 40 days after Elon Musk’s company refused to comply with a basic legal requirement: ensuring that any international company operating in Brazil has a legal representative in the country. This audacious move, echoing the lessons of Latin America’s struggles for sovereignty, reflects the region’s ability to push back against global powers—not through repression, but through the rule of law.

In Chile, the government has set a global standard by becoming the first country to constitutionally protect neurorights. This groundbreaking regulation addresses (as the initial bill showed) the risks of exploiting neural data and mental privacy by companies like Neuralink (Musk) and Meta (Zuckenberg), which are developing brain-reading and writing technologies. By enshrining neural autonomy as a fundamental human right, Chile’s efforts demonstrate a willingness to face the unknown—taking preemptive action in a field where most governments remain passive. In doing so, Chile not only protects its citizens, but also paves the way for global discussions on how to govern technologies that could shape the future of humanity.

Latin America is increasingly addressing antitrust concerns in digital markets, exemplifying the region’s commitment to curbing Big Tech’s dominance. In Mexico, the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) has signaled its intent to investigate monopolistic practices in the digital economy, particularly targeting dominant players like Google and Amazon. These efforts aim to ensure fair competition in markets where a few global companies wield outsized influence. In Argentina, the National Commission for the Defence of Competition (CNDC) launched an investigation into WhatsApp for allegedly excluding other platform operators, imposing interim measures to prevent further harm while the case is ongoing. Similarly, in Brazil, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) examined ride-hailing platforms like Uber for their market dominance, underscoring the region’s focus on promoting fair competition in digital markets. Together, these cases illustrate Latin America’s proactive approach to regulating Big Tech, ensuring accountability and protecting democratic values.

Latin America is also emerging as a leader in regulating artificial intelligence, emphasizing digital sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights. From Costa Rica’s proposed legislation to safeguard human dignity in AI development to Chile’s integration of AI rules into its personal data protection framework, as well as Colombia’s efforts to ensure judicial accountability in the use of AI tools, the region is taking proactive steps to address the ethical and societal impacts of AI. These actions reflect a broader commitment to shaping technology to serve public interests rather than yielding to unchecked corporate control, reinforcing the rule of law and democratic principles in the face of rapidly advancing technologies.

The lessons of Latin America’s past are particularly relevant here. In the early 1970s, Chile under President Salvador Allende pursued an ambitious vision to democratize technology through Project Cybersyn. This initiative sought to use cybernetics to manage the economy in a way that empowered citizens, reducing dependence on multinational corporations and foreign influence. Allende’s efforts highlight the potential for state-led technological innovation aimed at public welfare—a sharp contrast to today’s tech landscape, dominated by surveillance capitalism and private interests.

While Project Cybersyn was ultimately dismantled after the 1973 coup, its legacy offers valuable lessons for contemporary governance. It reminds us that technology need not be a tool of corporate monopolies; instead, it can be harnessed to promote equity and democracy. This perspective resonates strongly with Brazil’s recent actions. In November 2024, Lula’s administration built on this momentum by leading the G-20 Summit, successfully advocating for the inclusion of social media and AI regulation in the final communiqué signed by over 80 countries.

While such progress seems unattainable in Trump’s United States, Brazil—the hemisphere’s second-largest democracy—shows that civil society, a free press, and a commitment to regulation can begin to control the digital “wild west.” As we confront the challenges of surveillance capitalism, the proactive measures of countries like Brazil and the lessons of Allende’s Chile serve as a powerful reminder that democratic control over technology is not only possible but essential.

This is not a freedom of expression issue, as the big digital platforms claim. It is a matter of democratic control over the spaces where public discourse is shaped. It is not about limiting creative freedom, but about deciding what kind of music we want to dance to as a society. Democratic decisions and common sense should guide this discussion. If we allow the music to continue being dictated by the concentrated interests of a few, the dance will inevitably become tedious and—as history has shown us—dangerous. Regulatory creativity will be suppressed, and only those outside the concentrated decision-making processes will be able to envision alternative solutions.