I believe we must deeply reflect on the risks of so many sources of communication being controlled by a single company.

Like many others, I watched with immense concern the inauguration ceremony and first actions of Donald Trump as President of the United States. It is an aberration of our times, and all we can do is resist with the tools we have at our disposal.

Equally troubling was the presence of social media platform owners at the inauguration, such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. The former, now owner of X (formerly Twitter), brazenly displayed Nazi gestures with full confidence that he would face no consequences. The latter, more discreet, has recently been in the spotlight for announcing new policies at Meta—including the abandonment of fact-checking and the tolerance of hate speech. Meta, of course, owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, among other platforms.

I believe that as Brazilians, we must deeply reflect on the risks of so many communication sources being owned by a single company that answers to the political and financial systems of the United States. Questioning this is a way to elevate the concept of Brazilian democracy, which remains dependent on technological structures and information mediated by foreign corporations. Establishing networks with criteria that are our own and verifiable is an urgent need.

One way to address this dependency is by creating a Brazilian social media platform. At the very least, it would be an interesting provocation. Paraphrasing the “poet,” “we don’t need you,” United States.

Just as American social media companies received public support to expand, it is the responsibility of our public institutions to foster alternatives to compete in the immense Brazilian market against these global giants. These companies not only regulate a significant portion of our daily lives but also funnel their profits to the so-called Global North.

This line of thinking is not exclusive to Brazil. In the United States, the government compelled TikTok—a Chinese company—to establish operations and capital in American territory to continue functioning locally. So why can’t Brazil do the same?

In addition to fostering alternatives, there is an urgent need to regulate existing social networks. Regarding X, well before the debate gained traction, I joined Black movement organizations in filing a representation with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) in 2020. We questioned platform mechanisms that perpetuate racist discourse. Research shows that over 70% of “problematic tweets” in Brazil target Afro-descendants, especially Black women. This platform amplifies attacks via its Trending Topics feature, while avoiding accountability for the content.

The result is a true horror show. One example was the case of a young Black girl who was raped and impregnated by her uncle. Her name and the hospital performing the legal abortion were revealed on the platform and amplified via Trending Topics, alongside monetized posts about TV series and video games. Due to a poorly crafted Digital Framework law and the company’s blatant irresponsibility, this grotesque spectacle remained online for days and was only taken down by court order. Unsurprisingly, none of the profits generated during this period were redirected to the girl’s family, who had unwillingly become a “poster child” for the weekend’s stream of hits.

The representation I filed also sought compensation for harm to the Black community and effective equity policies within the company. This is why my name appears in the so-called Twitter Files, a compilation of complaints in emails exchanged among platform executives. But let me reassure these executives: as far as the MPF is concerned, X enjoys—and will continue to enjoy—a comfortable existence here. After all, this is the colony, and the company can do as it pleases.

Their competitor, Google, had a case dismissed by the same institution just last month. The Google Play Store had offered a game called “Slavery Simulator,” where players could own, buy, and sell slaves, as well as suppress uprisings. The case was shelved, and it is up to the MPF to explain its reasoning to the public.

In May last year, the MPF regretted losing a case in which it sought R$7.4 million from an influencer for racist content posted and kept available for years on X. I sympathize with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office because, in addition to its leniency, we also face challenges from the Brazilian Federal Justice system—but that’s a discussion for another text.

Still, I remain hopeful: if one individual’s racist tweets are valued at millions, how much does a platform like Twitter or Meta owe to the Black community? These companies have already been fostering environments for racial aggression on a massive scale and now do so blatantly.

I eagerly await an assessment and corresponding action.