Freedom of speech is increasingly under pressure, raising questions about who decides what "misinformation" is and how far censorship can go. From Elon Musk's X and Pavel Durov's Telegram to Chris Pavlovski's Rumble — prominent figures and platforms are increasingly facing bans, fines, and arrests. While some are targeted, others remain untouched, prompting the question: Is this a battle for democracy or against inconvenient truths?
Elon Musk and Jair Bolsonaro: Victims of Censorship or Threats to Democracy?
Jair Bolsonaro served as the president of Brazil from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, narrowly losing the 2022 election to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The two leaders have completely different worldviews. Bolsonaro quickly realized during the Covid crisis that measures like lockdowns, masks, and other restrictions were ineffective. Although he was fiercely criticized both domestically and internationally, he was later proven right.
Additionally, Bolsonaro fought hard against corruption and other malpractices, earning him many enemies within the circle of Lula da Silva and his friends. It's no surprise that the mainstream media labeled him "far-right"; any statement that goes against the established order's narrative receives this label. But da Silva didn't stop there. In response, Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered Elon Musk to ban Bolsonaro and six others X (formerly Twitter) from X, but he refused.
Under the guise of protecting the democratic rule of law and combating so-called "misinformation" — terms we often hear — Judge de Moraes ultimately decided that X should be banned in Brazil. Residents who attempt to access X via a VPN, for example, face a fine of 50,000 reais (about $9,000) per day.
But it doesn't stop there. The bank accounts of Starlink, another company owned by Elon Musk, were frozen because X refused to pay the imposed fine. An unprecedented move, as it becomes clear that the judge is abusing his authority to punish a company that has nothing to do with the case, except that it shares the same shareholder.
In summary, a president who narrowly came to power, with even foreign powers calling for an independent investigation into the fairness of the elections, is trying to silence his political opponent — who received no less than 49.1% of the votes — under the guise of “far right”, "misinformation" and a "threat to the democratic rule of law." The question now is: who is the real threat to democracy and the spreader of misinformation?
The Hunt on Telegram: Is Privacy a Threat to Power?
Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, was arrested on August 24th when he landed in France with his private jet. He faced a similar fate: accused of spreading "misinformation" via his platform Telegram, involvement in child pornography, and terrorism. Although he is currently free after paying bail of more than 5 million euros, he is not allowed to leave France while awaiting his trial.
Notably, Durov is the only founder of a major tech company who has been arrested. After all, don't platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and other social media also contribute to the spread of inconvenient opinions? Don't they also provide communication channels for criminals and terrorists? There is, however, one crucial difference: Telegram is secure and refuses to give governments access to user data, while other platforms do so through various backdoors. Could that be the reason for this selective approach?
And what about the CEO of Mercedes? Should they also be prosecuted because their cars are used daily for drug trafficking? Or what about the CEO of T-Mobile? Should they be held accountable because many conversations are held over their network that are clearly out of bounds?
If we follow this logic, every manufacturer or service provider could be held responsible for the misuse of their products or services by third parties. This raises the question: where do we draw the line between a company's responsibility and the actions of its users? And who decides which communication or platforms are labeled as "dangerous"?
Once again, the question arises: who is the real threat to democracy, and who truly spreads misinformation?
A Ban on Free Speech: How Far Does the Hunt for Inconvenient Opinions Go?
Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, who also refused to impose censorship during the Covid crisis and thus allowed people access to meaningful and ultimately correct information, fled the EU following the arrest of Pavel Durov. It appears that Rumble has already been banned in several countries and is threatened with a ban in other places.
Last month in England, Jordan Parlour was sentenced to 20 months in prison, with the judge noting that he got off lightly. This person had posted his blunt opinion on social media that he did not want to pay taxes for the many immigrants entering his country, whom he accused of raping women and children. While the statement may have been crude, a sentence of 20 months in prison raises the question: is that an appropriate response to a controversial opinion?
This raises questions about the limits of free speech and the level of punishment that seems to be imposed in some countries on those who go against the prevailing narrative.
Transparency and Privacy: Double Standards During the Covid Crisis?
During the Covid crisis, misleading information and lies were spread worldwide by the WHO and almost all governments. The vaccine was presented as safe and effective; it was said that people would no longer fall ill, could no longer infect others, and that its effectiveness was as high as 95%. Claims were made that the virus spread through droplets, that lockdowns and masks worked, and that the virus originated from a market in Wuhan. Meanwhile, other scientifically backed opinions that later became to be true were censored, as recently admitted by Mark Zuckerberg.
During the same period, Ursula von der Leyen struck a vaccine deal through text messages. Despite transparency laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), these messages have yet to be released, but she refuses. In many countries, including Germany, meetings between the health minister and scientific advisory councils were kept secret. Recently, however, a whistleblower in Germany revealed that the Minister of Health had lied: there was no scientific advice supporting measures such as mask mandates, access passes, and lockdowns — most experts were actually against them.
It seems that when it comes to their own actions and lies, governments hide behind "privacy," while the spread of misinformation by the government is often dismissed as a thing of the past and no longer relevant. But when citizens demand privacy or express dissenting opinions, they are strictly monitored and punished. It should be the case that the government is fully transparent, while citizens have the right to their opinions and privacy. There should be oversight of governments spreading misinformation, not of citizens with dissenting views.
Comentários