Big Tech positioning boosts favorable participation to the Fake News Bill, but opposition is still majority

Analysis by: FGV ECMI 

 

• In the legislatorial debate on Facebook, opposition to the Fake News Bill represents a significant majority, claiming threats to democracy and individual rights;
• Episode with Google motivates greater mobilization among the camp favorable to the PL, but engagement on the left is still significantly lower than on the right;
• “Lavajatista” profiles are closer to the “Bolsonarist” right, representing, together, about 73.4% of interactions on Twitter. The main motto is still censorship.

The expectations and disputes surrounding Bill 2,630/2020 continue to move the debate on social networks. On Twitter, opposition to the Bill gains prominence in the discussion, especially from the “Bolsonarist” right, with about 62.5% of interactions, and “Lavajatista” profiles, with 10.9%. This protagonism is similar to that observed in the legislatorial debate on Facebook, a network in which opposition, center congresspeople and senators obtain an overwhelming majority. This is what the survey by the FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information shows, it analyzed posts on the subject on Twitter and Facebook, between April 25 and May 2, 2023.

Although the left has been trying to guide the debate more, by increasing the number of posts in defense of the Bill, narratives that associate the Bill with censorship, political persecution and control of citizens' individual freedoms prevail. In some cases, these narratives were associated with the customs agenda, with religious arguments, anti-gender and anti-LGBTQIA+ perspectives. Among these different fields, there is still a relevant singularity in the way they are articulated: while the right has been mobilized mainly by congresspeople, the left relies on the work of activists, entertainment pages and influencers.

 

Legislatorial Debate

Evolution of the parliamentary debate by political field  on Facebook

Period: from 00:00 on April 25 until 2:00 pm on May 2

 

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

In the days close to the Bill urgent vote, the right dominated the debate on Facebook. This scenario changed, in part, after Google included, on its main search page, a notice contrary to the Bill, an episode that led to a spike in publications among the left, which argues that the Bill is relevant to curb violence in the digital environment. Even so, in the last period mapped, at 2 pm on May 2, the pro-government camp had about 91% fewer interactions, when compared to the right, which associates the Bill with censorship and the restriction of freedom of expression.

Main congresspeople in the debate related to the Fake News Bill on Facebook

Period: from 00:00 on April 25 until 2:00 pm on May 2 

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

Opposition to the Government has significant prominence in the congressional debate about Bill 2,630/2020 on Facebook. Carla Zambelli (PL) and Gustavo Gayer (PL) stand out, establishing a thematic affinity with highlights from center parties, such as Rodrigo Valadares (UNIÃO) and Clarissa Tércio (PP). Terms such as “PL da Censura” (Censorship Bill) and arguments that indicate that the Project will allow the State to control the opinions expressed by citizens are central among these congresspeople.

The left, while defending the relevance of the Bill, demonstrates a demobilization around the issue. Guilherme Boulos (PSOL), the figure on the left with greater centrality in this debate, had about 97% less interaction, when compared to Carla Zambelli. In some cases, mobilization attempts are noted, as occurs in the networks of the Bill rapporteur Orlando Silva (PCdoB), who has been making a series of posts on the subject. These posts, however, did not get good results, so Orlando had negligible interaction rates on Facebook.

Volume of interactions and posts by party on Facebook

Period: from 00:00 on April 25 until 2:00 pm on May 2

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

 

PL and Novo congresspeople lead engagement among the political parties. With the largest volume of congresspeople composing the legislative houses, PL has almost nine times more interactions than President Lula's party. In the government's allied base, while PT has the highest number of posts, PSOL leads in engagement volume. Republicans and União Brasil are the parties with the highest average engagement among the blocks that make up the center.

 

Public Debate

Evolution of Fake News Bill mentions on Twitter

Period: from April 25 to May 2

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

Three considerable spikes have so far marked the most general debate on Bill 2,630/2020 on Twitter. The first, on the night of April 25, when the urgency of the Project was voted and approved, was marked by congresspeople allied with Bolsonaro, such as Nikolas Ferreira (PL), Marcel van Hattem (NOVO) and Flávio Bolsonaro (PL). It is noted that, at this moment, the profiles contrary to the approval of the Bill mobilized narratives of easy assimilation and with a content of moral panic, listing the supposed consequences of the Bill and indicating which biblical verses will be equated with hate speech.

On the night of May 1, another peak was observed, this time with greater protagonism by actors favorable to Bill 2,630, such as Felipe Neto, Sleeping Giants Brasil, Gregorio Duvivier, and Flávio Dino. The mobilization of this group was motivated by Google's announcement contrary to the Bill, an episode classified as “filthy,” “shameful” and “very serious.” It is understood that Google's action would further explain the need for a platform regulation policy. On the other hand, criticism of Rede Globo and uninformative content about alleged censorship against the Bible brought together actors opposed to the Bill.

These narratives intensified over the hours, representing the highest peak of mentions of the debate, mapped on the night of May 2. Concentrating terms like “censorship” and hashtags like #pl2630nao, the discussion was leveraged by a strong mobilization of congresspeople, such as Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL) and Deltan Dallagnol (PODE), in addition to “Bolsonarist” influencers. In this sense, the group was focused on 1) criticizing Alexandre de Moraes' decision involving Google and 2) attacking Arthur Lira for postponing the vote on the Project. It is claimed that Lira's action was justified by "fear" of not approving the Bill. The left is part of this debate in a more lateral way, bringing updates on the possible vote on the Bill on the night of the  May 2, in addition to criticism of the platforms.

Map of interactions on the Fake News Bill on Twitter

Period: from April 25 to May 2

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

 

Right (Blue) - 49.3% of profiles | 62.5% of interactions

The group most assiduously opposed to the Fake News Bill is made up of names from the “Bolsonarist” right, from congresspeople, such as @zambelli2210 and @nikolas_dm, to influencers such as @leandroruschel. Hyper partisan vehicles, such as @revistaoeste, also join this chorus, sharing supposed indications that the Bill will curtail the individual freedoms of citizens. The most retweeted publication by the group, authored by Nikolas Ferreira, indicates that “biblical teachings” will be equated with hate speech, “disagreeing with homosexuality” with homophobia and “being against men in women's bathrooms” with discrimination. Referring to it as the Censorship Bill, the group criticized Alexandre de Moraes and the Government for supposedly censoring Google. The notion that the Bill will make the provision of “free services on the Internet” unfeasible is also part of the motto of the group's arguments. In general, the reiterated use of the rhetoric of threat in these posts is noted, alerting citizens about the supposed harms of the PL. In some cases, this perspective was triggered together with speeches from the so-called customs agenda, sharing religious and anti-LGBTQIA+ arguments. Criticisms of traditional media vehicles and the artistic class that supposedly benefit from the project did not gain prominence.

Progressive and Leftist Profiles (Red) - 36% of profiles | 26% of interactions

The group that defends Bill 2,630/2020 is diverse, with protagonism of progressive profiles and leftist pages, such as @slpng_giants_pt, @felipeneto, @lazarorosa25 and @choquei. It is interesting to note that the protagonism of congresspeople observed in the right-wing cluster is not repeated among the group favorable to the Bill. With a peak of mobilizations on the night of May 1, the episode involving Google motivated the group's participation in the discussion, echoing tweets that, in an ironic tone, question how platforms do not interrupt the circulation of hate speech, but supposedly block content favorable to the Bill of fake news. A series of complaints circulate about the alleged interference of big techs in such posts, stating, for example, that the platforms were responsible for boosting uninformative content that associates the Bill with the censorship of biblical verses.

“Lavajatista” profiles (Light Blue) - 12.9% of profiles | 10.9% of interactions

Mainly composed of profiles that adhere to “lavajtista” perspectives and call themselves, in some cases, “liberals” or “libertarians”, as @analuizaholan10, @ideias_radicais and @KimKataguiri. The group is very similar to the “Bolsonarist” right-wing cluster, establishing strong links by defending that Bill 2,630/2020 will put citizens' freedom at risk, regulating only groups that oppose Lula Government. There are also criticisms against the actors who defend the Bill, accusing them of incoherence for supposedly sharing fake news. There is also, among the cluster, a movement to expose the names of Congresspeople in favor of the Bill, classified as “censors”.

 

Cloud of terms about the Fake News Bill on Twitter

Period: from April 29 to May 2

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

• To better understand how the public debate on the Fake News Bill has developed over recent developments, we have broken down the analysis of terms into four days, considering from April 29 to May 2, 2023.
•  It should be noted, at the outset, that the respective core terms of the four clouds, “PL da Censura” (Censorship Bill), “Propagate fake news,” “#pl2630nao” and “freedom of expression” were leveraged by the group opposed to the Bill. Formed by common profiles, influencers, hyper partisan media vehicles and right-wing congresspeople, the group continues to emphasize that the Bill threatens democracy and the individual rights of the population by supposedly institutionalizing censorship, allowing Lula Government decide what is true or not. There are also, throughout the analyzed period, a series of attempts to accuse Government allies of fake news, classifying them as “incoherent”.
• As of April 30, criticisms of traditional media outlets were also mapped, with tweets calling the project “PL da Rede Globo” (Rede Globo’s Bill). The narrative in circulation indicates that the fact that “journalists from the Brazilian mainstream” defended the approval of the Bill already explains the supposed dangers of it to freedom of expression. There is, in this discussion, a strong pejorative and ironic content when referring to journalists, associated with “communists” and “militants with blue hair”.
• The episode with Google, on May 1, brought profiles in favor of the Bill to the debate, leveraging a discussion on the need to regulate platforms, especially big techs. In a heated, but still lateral way, a few users tried to outline a more significant mobilization, sharing that "Google lies", while others criticized the Government's position regarding the Bill, defending that the legislative process should have been done in a less mediatized way .
• On May 2, the protagonism of profiles opposed to the Bill, observed in the previous days, intensified, mainly due to the decision to postpone the vote on the Bill. Thus, direct attacks on Arthur Lira, classified as “enemy number 1 of Brazilian democracy”, and allegations that the Lula government was buying votes were mapped. Criticism towards the Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino, also intensified after pressure from the Government against Google. Although they have shown dissatisfaction with the postponement of the vote, the profiles contrary to the Bill also indicate that, for now, “good has won”, with a long battle still ahead.

 

Main links about the Fake News Bill on Facebook

Period: from April 25 to May 2

 

 

 

Source: Facebook | Elaboration: FGV School of Communication, Media, and Information

• Links associated with the “Bolsonarist” right and the opposition to Bill 2,630/2020 were central among the contents with the highest engagement on Facebook, with the protagonism of hyper partisan media, such as Jovem Pan News, O Antagonista and Jornal da Direita Online. The congressional mobilization of groups and caucuses that wish to block the approval of the Bill was highlighted in such contents, disseminating the notion that the government base would be weakened and the Bill would not be approved due to the actions of congresspeople and senators who would be “fighting” against censorship.
• In this sense, the negative emphasis on the opposition congresspeople who voted for the approval of the urgency, still on April 25, is also evident through the link to the score registered in the Chamber of Deputies. Only two contents echo arguments in favor of approval. While the government-aligned vehicle Diário do Centro do Mundo emphasizes the speech of the rapporteur Orlando Silva, the government's offensive against Google is highlighted on UOL.