The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Good afternoon, welcome to the open forum approach to Brazil. My name is (?) on the board and committee. First I would like to thank the IGF organizers and everyone presenting today here and online. A special thanks to our speakers. We are going to the debate. The Brazilian committee is composed with representatives there the government corporate sector and academic community forming unique governance model that ensured ethical (?). This open forum aims to present and discuss (?) Which qualifies indepth base for the platforms. As you know the regulation of the forums has global relevance in recent years, which various countries or approving models.
However, due to complexity and scope consensus has proven difficult, especially in countries like Brazil. These are diverse in size (?) Business and models and impacts, both positive and negative.
While platforms play important roles as connecting business and users, they pose significant risks. Both presumed improving that in fact, marks economies, Human rights, democracy, public health and many other areas. Concerns are especially focus on large platform that provide indispensable service such as search, social networks.
This scope coupled with diverse interests involved make challenge to agree on a de regulatory model. In this context of ongoing disputes and agreements, broad (?) To achieve multistakeholder consensus is utmost important.
We decide at CGI -- decided to conduct open consultations in Brazil. This consultation is as a result of over two years by CGI.br, this group here, which I coordinate. It has engaged with society through seminars, workshop and studies. We often systematise through 2023.
This workshop address (?) maps risks posed by platform activities, explores regulatory to mitigate risks and outlines actions and mechanisms necessary for implementation regulation.
We hope CGI.br role in stakeholder dialogue and consensus building on Internet uses, we contribute developing a consensus for a framework for platform in English and Brazil.
Today our open forum features six speakers. First you have Juliana and Juliano, and after that a colleague of mine presenting the academic and technical sector. After that,(?) Biabas, a CGI board member, present to cyber society. After that (?) Ilju from Brazil, Minister of foreign affairs, who holds a position on our board. At the end Monica (?) from Africa to present on those discussions.
This advisory team will briefly present structure and main results of the consultation. This will be followed by contribution from other speakers here from the step contributing to the contribution.
We are happy to launch here the publication of systemization and (?) Of consultation at the IGF. We provide some copy to you, if you want to more deeply of the consultation by itself. So Juliano will start with some of the consultation first, please.
>> JULIANO CAPPI: Thank you, (?). I'd like to start speaking of an important aspect of every consultation we chase. The social participation. A consultation only fulfils itself if society participates in its position.
Besides you produce good questions, structure and dynamic for the consultation, if the social participation doesn't happens, consultation fails. Then I'd like to highlight that this consultation has really high (?) Of consultation, nearly 1,000 inputs from 140 organisations from the four sectors that comprises the Brazilian committee, the CGI.br, government sector, third sector, business sector, and scientific and technical community.
The third sector, and the scientific and technical community, send most inputs with 41% and 39.5% of the total, respectively. The business sector accounted for 15% of the inputs and the government sector, only 4%, as it was expected.
It worth mentioning about the broad diversity of perspectives. Different positions arose not only between the different sector but also inside our represented sectors. What provided the consultation, a representative map of the understanding of digital platform regulation challenges of Brazil in 2023.
Final to mention the quality of organisation to produce good quality contributions for the consultation. Thank you. (?) Providing a meaningful contribution to the challenge of producing a piece of regulation for digital platforms in Brazil.
So it was defined three essential elements to the task. The first element was the definition of the regulate regulated entity. The second element was to have a good definition of the problems that should be addressed. For that we use the first stage of a regulation model, which is to map risks, the regulated activity falls to society.
The third element was to establish a governance model to implement the regulation. Then we define three main questions, one for each axis of the consultation structure. First, who to regulate. Define the regulated entity. Second, what to regulate. To define the problems we'd like to address. And finally, how to regulate to define a governance model to implement this challenging regulation.
So the consultation was structured into this three axises. In axis one we presented a (?) received on who to regulate in response to the question about the object and scope of regulation including different definitions, * (?) typologes and fields of the platform.
Two is the questions about the risks arising from digital platforms activities and, if possible, mitigating (audio difficulties) the risks were organised in four main groups. First, risks related to threats to competition, economic and data concentration. Second, risks related to threats should digital severity technological development and innovation. Third, risks related to thirds, and last but not least important, risks related to threats to democracy, Human rights.
Chapter three presented a synthesis of inputs on how to regulate digital platforms and the possible institutional arrangements to regulate them, considering both state regulation models and different approaches, just south regulation. Next, please.
>> Thank you. I will talk about the first axis. The inputs were about the scope of the regulation, so they were debating about definitions of platform regulation, and also which platforms to regulate. We divided these inputs in three categories. The first was definition and divided into categories. The first is infrastructure. The participants mentioned that platforms need a technological infrastructure and use variety of terminology such as digital, electronic and Internet.
The second characteristic is actors and their relationship on the platforms. This part, the participants highlighted that platforms are characterized by concept correcting groups and producing benefits to each group participants in the platform.
On that effect (audio difficulties) and also highlighting the market. Lastly, also some characteristics were pointed out by the participants as shared or essential directories to the platforms, like the use of artificial intelligence, technologies and (?). These characteristics were highlighted later in risk mapping as something that would intensify the risks.
We also analyzed platform topologies, as you can see examples. This typologist that arised in contribution may be determined the scope of initiatives or divide into sector regulation, as such regulation to public platforms or to food platforms, and it goes on.
Lastly, the third part of this axis one, is a discussion about asymmetry regulation. There was a broad consensus in consultation that regulation must be asymmetric except for live platforms informations.
In some business that most people think, that some actors in the digital ecosystem should be object of specific regulatory provisions. There was also some agreement that no criteria should be used individually. The criterias you can see here, like market share, core services, users, they should not be used individually or come nation. Usually gatekeeper was seen as encompassing all this other criteria.
This sorry, thank you. Sorry. This is where axis 2 (audio disturbance)
Are you listening? Okay. And inputs on axis 2, what to regulate. The first group of risks that's presented in there is about risks and measures associated with abuse of market power and economic concentration. This was one of the topics that received most attention from the participants.
It is interesting to note, there was a clear difference in approach of two different sectors two different groups, sorry. First part of the private sector, particularly those associations representing digital platforms, argue digital platforms are characterized by fast innovation, intense competition and constant change so didn't see those risks as relevant. Also because they think the Brazil system has the Brazil has a robust system, so it wouldn't be necessary to make any changes.
On the other hand there was a strong consensus among third sector, the government sector and scientific and technological community and also some part of the private sector, such as (?) Association Internet providers on relevance of the risk map. This group mentioned platform characteristics such as (?) And anti competitive strategies such as self prefacing or aggressive acquisitions, monopoly power and abuse. It is an interesting dynamic between risks that data processing and infrastructure concentration is seen as risk that contributes to another risk that is market concentration, economic power abuse.
These dynamics builds locking effect to big platforms. And a winner takes all dynamic, resulting in the detriment of preservation and alternative models in this group of actors. Considering the risks the participants debated myriad of measures to mitigate risks. We also see again this same division between these two groups.
In part, the groups connected to associations of digital platforms. They think that defence the competition system is enough to convey abuses. That is usually provisions that accent that is they function after no, ex post, sorry. They function after the issue happen. So they don't don't see any need for change. However, the other group that I mentioned see the need for new measure, new regulatory measures from the economic and competition perspective. And a lot of measures that you can see on the slide were discussed. Especially I would like to highlight the interoperability was a big consensus in the consultation. Even between platforms. But there was divergence on how this would be implemented.
Also on the other hand, policies to promote alternative models like policies to innovation and alternative to those large platforms such as not for profit or local models were highlighted only by participants from the third sector in the scientific and technological community. So there was not the same division that before.
>> Considering the human no, hold on. The human rights structure and the vast majority of inputs mentioned, threats for the expression, access to reliable information, cultural diversity and democracy spreads by several challenging issues, such as disinformation, the rise of extremism, hate speech and incitement of violence. Risks true quality journalism were highlighted. There was a consensus that fighting for (?) Involving strengthening journalism, an important mechanism, to ensure citizen access information.
Regarding democracy and the electoral process there was broad consensus on relevance of digital platforms in construction of public debate. The powerful influence of digital social media on public debate poses risks, domination of public discord. Relative to children and adults and several inputs on ability of this groups to business NGS models and emphasizing protecting rights. From point of view of counterfeiting measure three issues could be highlighted. Risks on data collection and profiling considering principals in context, use of platforms, risk of programmatic advertising, transparency measures and intermediary liability based on risks of the activities.
Finally, last axis on governance, we analyse that the input suggested that approaches are essentially defined by two conceptual vectors. The first vector discusses whether states or private sectors should have a protagonist role; while the second consider whether the locus of decision making should be concentrate ed in a single institution or decentralized across several actors.
Strict regulation will have little or no protection in decentralized decision making locus as it would be dispersed across digital platforms. In contrast in self regulation the locus of this would be concentrate ed in a single private self-regulatory agency and the state will have little protectionism. I guess those are the quick highlight of main result of the consultation. I gave back the floor for Henrique Faulhaber.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Juliano and Juliana. After this summary of the consultation, I now give floor to speakers presenting different sectors. Each of you have eight minutes to share your comments on the consultation process and results, as well, you are free to make any statement about any issues related to digital platforms in Brazil. We did this cons take last year and year from now there are several situations and events regarding platform regulation should be commented here, so you are free to do that as you will. So start with Marcel Maci, our board member from academic and scientific community. Marcel, the floor is yours.
>> MARCEL: Thank you, Henrique. I'm Marcel at the Brazil Internet Committee, presenting to the Scientific Community. Also a researcher at National School of Public Health of (?) Foundation. I'm here replacing our colleague, who could not join us due to visa issues while travelling from some (?) And thank the organizers to speak.
I congratulate the working group at CGI and staff for this relevant outcome you present here is very important contribution for the platform and Brazil worldwide. To point comments here, beyond this amazing study on regulation, the Brazilian CGI conducted other studies on digital platforms. One focuses on role of platforms in education, analyzing the growing presence of platforms in public education systems in other countries. Another study explores the federation of journalists by platforms and can access this at CGI.br. We will focus on my comments making parallel between platform regulations and regulation of digital health that I'm studying and researching and (?)
Our study has implications of digital technologies for health. Special platformisation of health. (?) Public Health Institution dedicated to advancing knowledge to support the Brazilian health system. Now (?) Or SUS, we call. While improving population's health and quality of life is the mission of (?)Furcruz. This is essential to achieving sustainable development goals. My research is supported by the cruise agenda which ends to align field Cruz with United Nations sustainable development goals.
Just a brief on digital health, how it relates to platforms, when you think about digitalisation health or digital health, we see that this field brought sitting changes to health systems worldwide, especially Brazil and University Health Systems SUS. What this means digital health in threats includes telehealth consultations which allow patients to connect with professionals remotely and enable professionals to consider other specialistists, professional. Wearable device and technologies which generate a vast amount of personal data and information. Integration and analysis of health data, creating opportunities for surveillance. This is prevention, health promotion and improve the health care.
Digitalisation health is not entirely new. It began in 1986 and involved. However over the years have seen growth in Internet and (?) Health care and data usage transforming how health care is delivered. Like other sector, health care is undergoing significant changes due to rise of platforms. We call platformization of health. What is advancement offer opportunity to expand health care services? They also bring critical resources that needs careful attention.
It is worth mentioning the economic effects of digital health were not extensively studied and there is a study from CGI on digital platforms information is relevant for other sectors, such as health care.
Briefly on the Brazilian health care system or SUS, we developed the Brazilian SUS in 80s, have more than 30 years of public health system in Brazil and based on comprehensive principle health, undermined by social conditions like food, housing, education, income, environment, work, transportation and access to health care.
So health care is linked to every aspect of our life. The SUS has some key principles. We can mention universality, equity, integrity, (?) Management and social participation. We consider in Brazil the health care responsibilities are shared. The SUS is managed by three levels of government: Municipal, state and national and include participation from government officials, health care workers and seasoned health counsellors in conference. This shared governance enforces the liberty of democracy of health care in Brazil. Brazil has private health care market organised as an insurance market. Today 25% of Brazilians, 50 million use the insurance for injections, treatment and public health companies. Meanwhile 75% of population depend exclusively on SUS or unfortunately faces regular access to health care through philanthropic provision. So we have many problems for delivering health care in Brazil. Five years ago Brazil lawnched a new digital health care strategy aligned with the globalisation digital strategy on health. By leveraging this, this initiatives transform the Brazilian health care system and improve health outcomes for the population.
In spite of this strategy, key progress have been developed in health care service through technology and data. This programme focus on entire health care process improving education and enhancing coordination among providers.
Enhancing primary care with additional tools and resources to improve patient care and management at local level. And the National Health Data Network centralized and personalizes data potentially enhancing better decision making and data interoperability and promotes mobile applications to provide easier access to health care services and information.
Please understand it is going to direction of platformisation of the health care. These bring potential benefits, we must ask questions. Who owns the infrastructure and data and who benefits from these changes. Study at the foundation we examined the Brazilian stretch to answer these questions. We identify three dynamics are driving the platformisation of digital health in Brazil. The first is data concentration. Health data is increasingly used as commodity often concentrate ed in hand of a few entities. The second one is privatization of public and infrastructure. Public health data infrastructure is increasingly managed by private platforms.
The third one is chief the user as a consumer. Since chief active participants in public health governance to consumers of health care services. This dynamic risks fragment health care threats and undermine integrity of health care system. Moreover, offering digital service in the country, unique access could present barriers. Our research presents parallels between Brazil and other countries such as United Kingdom and Denmark, where public health systems are influenced by private interests. In Brazil the public health data stored on Amazon Web Services, evidence of compliance with national data protection. Now Palantir with links to service manages NHS data, raising concerns about how is used.
Social participation is key in the health care systems, designed to involve population policy making process related to health care services. This highlights the importance of community engagement and empower promoting health and ensuring services meet the needs of the population. In recent years discussion about digital health in Brazil have primarily takes place in two space. One is the manager committee on digital health, limited government officials and representations. The second is the Committe of Information standardization in private health which include private health insurance companies and health care providers, unions, with no participation of users.
With digitalisation of services and (?) Of forums that we may see participation has shifted. Instead of fostering knowledge (?) Users are threatening consumers who evaluate and engage in digital health service, limiting opportunities for democrat governance. Social movements in Brazil have pushed back against this trend. For instance, the (?) Stronger words on personal data protection and against risks often associated with data sharing.
Last year Civil Society organisations proposed free conference information digital health, presenting proposals for the national health conference that happened in the last July. In this year under the pressure of social movements, the National Health Council studies chamber on digital health, bringing together government, academia, workers and user associations to discuss and shape digital health policies.
This evolution highlights the valid stakeholder approach in FLORM regulation and digital health governance. Diverse perspectives from government, academia, Civil Society are necessary. Accountability and protection of citizen rights particularly.
So thank you for your attention. Be happy to discuss about regulation of platforms.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Marcel, for the overview of digital health systems in Brazil. We believe our role in digital platform regulation should be applied in effects in the field. Next we have Uno Garcia from foreign Minister. You have the floor.
>> Thank you so much. Hello. Hello. Thank you so much. Congratulations for this event. Thank you for the CGI Brazil Internet Steering Committee for organizing this session. I hope my microphone works to the very end.
This was a consultation held in a multistakeholder exercise. You see... let's go back and start all over again. Thank you so much for this invitation. Congratulations on this event and the CGI, Brazil's Internet Steering Committee, thank you for organizing the session. By the way, we have hard copies available of the book on the consultations here on the table if you want to take one of them. Or also download the PDF or the electronic version of the book. It is also available.
This is, as I said in the beginning, a very important exercise in terms of multistakeholderism. That we take multistakeholder model very seriously. By the way, you might also be interested to note we have some (?) Multistakeholder guidelines adopted earlier this year in SAN Paolo during the Net 10. I think participants participating in the GCC implementation and WSIS would be interested in looking at the SAN Paolo guidelines. They are also available and you can also access to CGIs websites. As a footnote, but very important in terms of IGF debates.
We have been busy in Brazil, busy with the G20, as you know, including the Working Group On the Digital Economy, where some issues were discussed, including universal and meaningful connectivity in the government and digital public infrastructure and artificial intelligence. We found an approach seeking to reduce inequalities.
I mention the G20 because we introduced in this group on digital common the topic of information integrity, which is extremely important. That is the way of discussing digital platforms. This was the first time they addressed this issue of digital information including missing information, disinformation, fake news and everything in between. We reach a consensus within the G20, and it was adopted by the end during the ministerial meeting concluding the work of the digital economy working group.
And this is something that and we also feel is not only important topic to discuss, but if you see during these consultations there is a topic as relates to that, which I'd like to highlight. It is digital sovereignty. If you take the Chapter 3 of axis 2, the book, you see there is a chapter on risks related to threats to digital sovereignty, technological development and innovation.
Everything is related, not only digital integrity but regulation of digital platforms and digital sovereignty. It is not there is no consensual definition of digital sovereignty. It is clear that in the different contributions from academia, Civil Society, the private sector and the other stakeholders, this is clear in the consultation and the outcome. But this is a very rich debate that I invite you to have a look at this Chapter 3 of axis 2. For example, one possible definition, but not the only one, was submitted during the consultations defining digital sovereignty as the capacity to exercise power and control over digital infrastructure and data and implies understanding the effects both positive and negative of each technological choice.
Of course there are many other definitions that were submitted or suggested during the consultation. And in my view, digital sovereignty is related to the rights of self determination and control over your own digital future. But this is my personal view. So as a contribution to this debate.
In this case it doesn't mean digital sovereignty closing our borders or any sort of isolation from international networks or supply chains. For example, data centers. Let's suppose a data center run by a national government with control over the national data or the data of the citizens of this country. Sometimes in Brazil we call it Sovereign Cloud.
In this case, you can also even you can buy hardware from a foreign company, but only you have access to the data within the geographical boundaries of your national territory or jurisdiction. So in terms of it is also related to data sovereignty. Software should reflect your local needs, linguistics and cultural background.
This is a discussion that is interesting to maybe we can go deeper, but talking about digital platforms, which is the main topic of this session, having our digital future controlled by a few tech companies doesn't look like the best scenario, to me.
Of course there is discussion on concentration of power. That is something that need to be tackled. In particular for the developing countries that lack resources, expertise or the means to be on an equal footing with global private companies.
Then having said that, Brazil has become one of the most prominent countries leading defence of democracy in the rule of law from acts against democratic institutions.
You remember not so long ago a temporary ban on the X platform in Brazil due to lack of decisions on suspicious or fake profiles on the X platform, inappropriate content. In particular absence of legal representative of foreign company in Brazil. This was not a question of free speech but self defence of democracy in Brazilian institution and freedom is guaranteed by the constitution.
When we have decision by the Brazilian federal Supreme Court it was pretty clear that the lack of compliance was undisputed but when you hear a very famous CEO and billionaire, I will refrain from saying his name, but let's call him Mr. X, a very rich and powerful businessman mocking Brazilian institutions, openly defying, saying I will not comply with Brazilian legislation. Frankly, this, to my view, this is unacceptable. For Brazil, as a democratic state, it was a matter, again, of defending the rule of law against attacks by from a foreign private company.
Basically, the problem would be summarizing one simple sentence. Brazilian law should be respected. That is all. For those who wish to go deeper, look at the Marcos review, the Internet CEO framework, a very famous contribution in Brazil, the Marcos review. You see article 11 says clearly, any operation involved in collection, storage, safekeeping of records, personal data or of communications by Internet connection application providers in which at least one of these acts occurs within the national territory and that is the point that's important Brazilian legislation, rights to privacy protection of personal data and confidentiality of private communications and records must be complied with. So basically the Marcos review, Internet framework, says that presidential law should be respected. (?) For those Portuguese speaking friends here, article 1137, for a company authorized to operator shall be subject to Brazilian laws and courts with operations in Brazil. 1138, for foreign company authorized to operator is required to have a permanent representative in Brazil with powers to resolve issue and receive legal summons on behalf of the company.
So maybe to conclude, as I said, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian constitution. Happily, this problem was resolved in terms of compliance. X decided to pay the fine and appoint a legal representative in Brazil and finally comply with decisions by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court.
Meanwhile other foreign companies and digital platforms had no problem at all with the judiciary. They had continued their operations normally in Brazil. Like, for example, Meta is doing great in Brazil. We know Brazils love WhatsApp, operating normally. This is a very specific case because it is relevant for the discussion on digital platform regulation.
And a very famous, let's say CEO that is well known everywhere. And this was the result of the problem that we had to deal with. I'm not going to repeat myself. Not only Brazilian law should be respected but that is obligation of self defence of democracy and rule of law. This is something in terms of lessons learned I think is relevant for us to discuss. And to see how we can avoid or perhaps try to see if such problems don't happen again. I will stop here, thank you so much.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you for comments. A recent situation in Brazil, in fact, geopolitical issues regarding action of digital platforms should be discussed deeply. And in fact, is part of the whole charter of our platform regulation working group. So I follow to (?) A board member of CGI who presents Civil Society. Please, you have your eight minutes to give your talk, thank you.
>> Now, yes? Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation. My name is Enrique Barbosa, member of steering committee, one of the Civil Society representatives of our CGI.br and member of right to communication and democracy, a Brazilian NGO that struggles for freedom of expression and communication rights in Brazil.
I would like to offer some thoughts on how the results of our public consultation can contribute to ongoing legislative process in our country and in other as wells of course considering the current disputes surrounding the regulation of platforms.
Firstly, I think that it is important to say that from the perspective of the Civil Society regulating digital platforms, especially social media and search engines is an urgent task on democratic and Human rights agenda in the digital age. Is a way of ensuring the balance in this market, respect for the digital ecosystem in establishing a regulatory framework that addresses a problem caused by the way company's business models work.
We were talking about an economic sector, like any other else, must be regulated. We are talking about sovereignty. Not from the perspective of states closed down the Internet or regulating the Internet, but in the sense these are global companies that need to respect democratic legislation adopted by states.
In democratic nations it is only possible to move towards a digital environment based on Human rights, where the exercise of freedom of expression exists and is guaranteed in balance with other fundamental rights. If states take decisions to regulate platforms. Regulate not through judicial decisions, which are legitimate and can exist, but through a regulatory framework debated in the parliament involving all the stakeholders. This is not even happening in our country. I would like to mention the initiative under discussion in Brazil, which may consider the results of the public consultation, but which is, in large part, has already reflected its concerns and deals with the regulation of social media in relation to transparency and due process in the moderation of harmful and illicit content.
The Bill 22630 debated in Brazil has been the subject of thousands of hearings and hundreds of contributions from experts in the field. It expands the possibility of holding social media liable, establishes user's rights to guarantee freedom of expression. Established ascensions and create a participatory, regulatory institution for monitoring and applying the (?) In the sphere. Unfortunately the approval has been blocked by resistance from the far right political parties, which claims the laws should would violate absolute freedom of expression on social media and also by pressure from platforms that are against the tech. We hope, however, with the new President of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies next year the texts can be discussed again. Another underway in Brazilian parliament which would draw heavily on public consultation is Bill 2768, 2022, which proposes economic regulation of platforms inspired by European Digital Markets Act but with much less detailed text based on antitrust and defence of competition.
According to the parliamentarian proposing the initiative would not be prepared to put a straight jacket on economic agents, which series of absolute prohibitions. Then the bill is focused on mitigating essential access control of digital platforms.
The bill establishes they will be considered holders of essential access control power when they earn annual operation revenue equal to or greater than 13 million dollars from services offered to the Brazilian public. Among an obligation of these company, which access control power, would be transparency and provision of information to the national telecommunications agents on the provision of their services.
As economic and nondiscriminatory treatment, when offering services to professional users proper use of data collected in the course of its activities and not refusing to provide access to digital platforms to professional users. The National Telecommunications Agency could impose measures to mitigate abuse of economic power including those related today that affordability and interoperability.
From the perspective of Civil Society, the project the weak and makes little progress in relation to existing demands to tackle the economic power of big techs. In this regard we find much more interesting initiative launched in October, last October, by The Minister of Economics of Financing in Brazil which presented recommendations for regulatory antitrust system with regard to digital platforms.
Inspired by the past, adopted by England, Japan and, above all, Germany, all through a robust analysis of the competition expect of municipal platforms, the ministry concluded competition policies need to be updated to keep up with the dynamics and characteristics of digital platforms.
The aim of the new regulation would be to promote contestability in markets prone to concentration, ensure governance parameters in management of network effect in the absence of competitive pressure, ensure freedom of choice for users of digital platforms and promote transparency in digital markets.
The way forward would be to improve the application of the competition laws enforced in Brazil, better investigating competitive dynamics and defining specific obligations for problems identified in each case.
But also through a legislative project to provide data structure counsel (?) More effects tools to designate economic agents of system relevance. The rights on the network organisation believes economic regulation needs opportunity to deal with negative (?) of the platform models and transparency obligations set out in recommendations must guarantee public scrutiny by commercial end users of the business models imposed by digital platforms.
Given the symmetry independence between this agency transparency obligation must be geared towards the collective interests and those affect by policies and governance, which in many case represent abuses on rights to privacy and data protection and freedom of expression. A drafted bill is being discussed by federal government of Brazil and probably be in 2025.
In short, these are just three examples of three process that release different axises in our public consultation. There are others such as data protection, protection of children rights in the online environment, labour regulation on platforms, that are being debated in Brazil. We through the Internet steering committee intend to contribute. This is precisely why results of the consultation have been presented congressmen and women and members of the government at various meetings held by our team in Brazil.
From Civil Society, we enforce the importance of moving forward in the construction of regulation for digital platforms, and their centrality in maintaining democracy. This is a fundamental step towards guaranteeing a digital ecosystem that is reliable and attentive to integrity of information in the context of streaming digitalisation including our democratic process.
I am available for any other further questions. Thank you for the exchange and the debate.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Bea, for input from Cyber Society on those issues. You bring several current discussions on economic regulation of digital platforms and also comments on the process stopped on discussion of Bill 2630.
Now we will have Monica from Meta giving input on private sector. Meta was association from private sector on construction of this consultation. We are very glad to have you, Monica, thank you.
>> Hi. Can everybody hear me? Yes, thank you. Thank you for the invitation, Juliano and Juliana, it is a pleasure. It is morning but I haven't had lunch. I'm Monica Gisi, head of public policy for Meta in Brazil. We did participate in the specific consultation that was conducted by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. And we would like to congratulate CGI on conducting such thorough work, especially when delivering the results. We did not collaborate individually as Meta but rather our trade associations. And I have just few remarks. I know we are a little bit short on time, so I'm going to try to make them as brief as possible.
CGI's consultation was mainly structured around the risks of how digital platforms operate, then proposing regulation that would be addressed to those specific risks raised. So my contribution here today is for us not to lose sight of the contributions as well. That the Brazilian platforms have to offer to the Brazilian economy.
I personally feel when we are focused on risk then proposed regulations we sometimes lose sight of the economic, the social, the empowerment benefits that platforms actually have and have been having for years to the public, specifically their users.
I can talk of opportunity for businesses. We have seen so many especially small and medium, but I love the examples that we can bring from small business, using our specific platforms to thrive in times and especially in countries and in economies that do not allow certain groups of people to be in the (?) Economy.
I have been interacting with so many women in Brazil who have their businesses thriving because they are using our platforms. That is just to speak on the business side.
In terms of creating opportunities for people, I would love to raise this speech aspect of how having different means to communicate with the general public of how important having this platforms provider services is.
Very coincidentally this morning I had a meeting with a former government member in Tunisia. He was responsible for implementing the transition to Tunisia as a democracy from dictatorship to democracy. That person was very, very what's the word in English? I'm so tired I'm forgetting. It is only Day 3 enthusiastic in saying how much of an important role Facebook played in the revolution that took place in Tunisia. And how if it hadn't been for Facebook being present at that specific moment, the information wouldn't have gotten to people and the revolution probably would have had a very different face than it does now days.
So when the CGI's consultation raises risks to democracy, I feel that it is important for us not to lose sight of how important it is for us to keep and maintain and strengthen certain safeguards that the Brazilian law actually has in place and to hold those for the near future. We are currently in Brazil facing a situation in which we are seeing the Supreme Court rule on a very important article of our review, which is article 19. We are risking the Supreme Court declared that article unconstitutional. Meaning we would be throwing away I wouldn't say only ten years, not just one decade from Marcos Review being adopted, but the many years that come before Marcos Review in which Civil Society, academics and international organisations helps us build a very robust conversation around thor importance of how we define liability for Internet companies in this age.
I'm very, very concerned about the path that we might be taking, moving forward. From a company perspective, if we were to remove speech in a way that we are seeing the first opinions that the Supreme Court of justices are delivering, we would pretty much be removing (audio difficulties) we have risks to the business, especially talking about countries we have a large user base, such as Brazil, the risks would definitely outweigh the economic opportunities.
So I feel it is extremely important for us not to lose sight of these types of discussions and not to take the current laws we have in place for granted. They are constantly on the risk, as we are seeing in Brazil right now. And I feel that CGI's consultation, especially when it comes to the axis of defending democracy, does a pretty good job at highlighting the importance of defences such as this one.
Also coincidentally, Professor Marcel this morning published a very interesting article on this topic of (?). I would suggest my Brazilian colleagues who speak Portuguese to look it up. It is very interesting because he raised 100 lawsuits that have taken place over the last couple of years in which individuals went to the courts in order to have their contents either restored or removed. But mostly removed.
It is a very interesting analysis of how even the courts diverge in terms of what is an offence where violations exactly are. So to transfer all of that power to private companies in order to decide what should and should not be spoken on the Internet in Brazil seems, to me, disproportionate.
I can guarantee that digital platforms do not want this type of power in their hands. Especially as we are business oriented and at the end of the day the civil liability would undermine the economic benefits potentially, so we would be removing so much speech.
And I would hate to see the Facebook that has helped Tunisia get out of non democratic state become a place where we will only be looking at recipes and cute pictures of cats and dogs, no matter how much I love looking at cute pictures of dogs.
I will stop here and let the discussion continue, thank you very much.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Monica, for input on the positive side of use of technology digital platform also because it is a vector of growth and economic expansion. So we can't just talk about the negative side. Thank you also for bringing the discussion about the current discussion on Supreme Court. Bea has already mentioned the blocking of discussion of congress on Bill 2630 lead to Supreme Court discussing today today you have third vote on that issue and is concerned everybody is concerned about to change Internet rights in Brazil. It's landmark on the Internet regulation and right for uses modified by the Supreme Court not part of the (?) And at the moment we are in fact, having votes on making Article 19. In fact, today Minister (?) Is bringing more balanced vote, bringing the self regulation with the regulation approach that we believe that is more aligned with the (?) Government that we defend in Brazil. With participation of our stakeholders and giving the hands off the companies but under certain conditions.
So I believe this discussions, as you know we are indeed middle of the road on that discussion and believe this kind of session here is good for us to discuss Brazilian issues but also to our colleagues is here from other countries, how this discussion is being held in Brazil.
We have some time for questions and also comments from the speakers. I don't know if there are questions from the audience or online. There's no online if someone has put a question here on the room, the mic will be available. If not, I provide to the speakers some time to make your final comments, since we discussed much of the process of the consultation but the results that put on the table and some very important comments on the active situation of these issues on Brazil. From the side of the group that will coordinate on platform regulation, this year you have (?) Seminar on Brazil on the second quarter bringing back issues that are more (?) Mainly on economic regulation and also discussion on issues related, again, to the social media moderation, this kind of thing that now discussed on Supreme Court. We also we are also recognizing most discussions regarding platform regulation is now on the arena through the AI Bill, AI laws being discussed in Brazil.
I will give the floor to each of you. I don't know who wants to speak first. Bea, Monica, Marcel, or Ju to make your comments. Someone to make a question, would be free also to do that. Bea, you can, then?
>> Hello. Just a comment that I think it is the systemization of the consultation, it is not simple. If anybody wants to read the consultation itself, it is even bigger and more complex, but I think there are many interesting elements in the different axis of the consultation. Even I agree with Monica that framing it regarding the risks, I think there are many other contributions that we can take it from not regarding only the risks that the platform I think business models of the platforms brings, but I think that there are many other aspects of the consultation that even us at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee haven't yet dived in. For example, regarding labour rights in platforms is something quite present in the consultation, but we haven't yet started an interim discussion about this topic.
And there are bills of the parliament or discussions in the executive branch of the federal government dealing with these topics that we could try to organise ourselves. Not only from the Brazilian Internet community perspective but from the governance of Internet community in Brazil to contribute to this process.
It takes much more initiative but I through Juliano and Juliana that are organizing with the executive of the government can tell us how receptive they are to these ideas. Because when you bring some perspectives from a moot stakeholder perspective to the debate, I think it helps us to move forward much more focused on what we agree. Then instead of focusing all the difference that we have, the different positions that we have.
And, of course, is going to be a a debate is going to be a conflict, regulation, but I think that we need to move forward so I'm pretty optimistic regarding the results that we had the consultation and how it can help not only our work but the work that everybody that is really interested in having this conversation in the public sphere of at least at the Brazilian landscape but not only of the Brazilian landscape. I think many in the region, for example, South America and Latin America are different countries that are dealing with this topic as well, facing this debate. And I think we can help them with the systemization of the consultation and only with positions that we are managed to form and establish in the Brazil Internet Steering Committee so an invitation for everybody to read by mostly debate and engage in this discussion.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Bea. You have about 9 minutes so invite anyone from speakers to talk and audience.
>> Thank you for all the interventions. I found it very interesting what is discussed here today. My perspective, I see that we have the platform business but also are facing the platform states. I don't say platform states because stated several activities and responsibilities that are not platformised but public steps going to platforms.
And I think that as Bea was externalities we need to preserve the individuality of persons and the rights and sovereignty. I think it is important. With regulation we can provide both, the economic growth and create safeguards. I guess the consultation was a good meeting to take a look on that, as we provided the (?) Or protection of the law for public and private, we could think also about how regulates the platformisation of states. That would be important because we as individual looking for this as individual, we don't have the means to measure the risks. We have to support measure of risks because we are involved in data sharing. Looking on the public health perspective, with the environmental problems that we face, it is important to have the production of knowledge about the risks. And thinking on the regulation is what is said here, to promote good access to Internet through significant Internet and participation. The state is not wide enough, the good interests. The states should be democratically open to participation. To have Civil Society side on the state activities is important. Not only for business people proclaim on platforms but states behaving as platforms, we have this open for social participation in a democratic governance.
So these are my ideas relating to our discussion today. Thank you for the session.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: So we have six minutes. Maybe Monica or Je want to say something.
>> Yes, I think we should celebrate we are discussing these issues with participation and engagement of all sector of society in Brazil and beyond. Generally, in the multistakeholder exercise. This is a consultation, a very successful one, on regulation of digital platforms. Maybe to recap it, what I said for the records, I mentioned digital sovereignty as an important topic as the rights of self determination and control over your one digital future, including law enforcement and respect for court decisions based on the constitution and national legislation at large. So I mentioned the temporary ban of X, the X platform, which, for me, was a very unfortunate incidence by a company that refused to comply with Brazilian law. I don't have much to add but to say we live in democratic country, open society where debate is free. That is why we are here. This consultation held by the Brazilian Internet steering committee is a living example that democracy should and will prevail always. Thank you so much.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Okay. Monica.
>> Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. Just a final I would like to, again, congratulate CGI, especially group on platform regulation for conducting this work. Yesterday I was in a panel in which I had the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions that about big tech. I cannot speak for all of my business peers, but I can speak for Meta. Yesterday I was able to talk about the misconception that people have that we profit from this information, for instance. We don't. Our advertisers hate it when their ads are placed close to misinformation. Our users don't want to be in our platforms if they are not feeling safe. And today I feel I have the opportunity to talk about another misconception, which is the fact that Meta doesn't want any regulation. That is not true. We have contributed. To be very honest, we didn't contribute as a company because we did not have the time to put up a contribution that would pass all the approvals necessary for us to submit on time. That is why we work through our trades. We are still a relatively small team that we are for the discussion, we want to be part of the discussions. We are seeing real time today, now days, this week, last week what happens when the congress doesn't legislate and when other powers take that you know, that task into hands. We are seeing how badly that can go.
So I would like to highlight and reaffirm our commitment to continue advancing in the discussions that can lead to good regulation for not only for the business but for Civil Society, for users, for Brazil. So I publicly reaffirm our commitment and to continue these conversations back home, thank you.
>> HENRIQUE FAULHABER: Thank you, Monica. I believe we have to interrupt. It was a very good workshop, open forum. So we are glad to having our positions, the job we've done through the working group that puts the consultation, their outcomes on the book that we are delivering today. And also for discussions that we have here that's that deal with very recent issues that are open. But we feel that together in the moot stakeholder approach we can have success on tackling of this difficult task that we have in order to have the benefits and also avoiding the risks of using technology on our lives so deeply. So thank you, everybody. We will have results on the website of IGF after working on the results that I believe we have the thank you.