Independent media journalists warn the Special Secretariat for Social Communication (Secom): Orlando Silva's project favors Globo and threatens democracy.

Representatives of independent media outlets met this Friday with the Secretary of Digital Policies of the Federal Government, João Brant, in a meeting that can be considered of historical importance. The secretary will no longer be able to claim, in the future, that he was unaware of the risks to democracy posed by the approval of a bill that is being rushed through the Chamber of Deputies due to public pressure from Grupo Globo.

Aquias Santarém, from Canal Critica Brasil, said he found it strange that the project created to combat fake news determines the remuneration of companies that practice so-called professional journalism – an empty expression, since journalist Aquias is no less professional than Globo's employees. 

Behind the pressure from large media companies like Globo, there seems to be an interest in securing a larger share of the revenue from digital platforms such as Google and YouTube. In Australia, a similar law guaranteed Rupert Murdoch's media group additional resources of approximately R$230 million per year.

YouTuber Ronny Telles, in turn, warned that the bill will increase the risk of demonetization of smaller channels. According to the text being processed in the Chamber of Deputies, authored by rapporteur Orlando Silva (PCdoB-SP), a single complaint will be sufficient for the platform to be considered formally notified regarding potentially misleading content.

Since the platforms will also be responsible for the content, the tendency is for them to remove posts (videos or text) to avoid the risk of paying compensation or suffering other types of penalties. Larger channels, however, tend to keep the content. 

"And we know that there isn't just one Bolsonaro supporter in Brazil who will denounce our content, but millions," he said.

Ronny Telles has already been a victim of the double standards practiced by platforms even without the existence of a law. On his YouTube channel, he published a video in which a man wearing a Brazilian national team jersey is seen clinging to a moving truck on the road during post-election demonstrations. 

The post was removed by YouTube, which claimed it violated the platform's guidelines. It alleged that it incited violent protests. However, the same video remains on UOL's channel.

"With this project, things will get much worse," he stated. "Our content will be taken off the air quickly, but that of the larger channels won't. Ultimately, we could be forced to close down," he added. The journalists from the independent media stressed that they are not against combating fake news and disinformation. What is striking is that Orlando Silva's project also addresses advertising.

João Antonio, from Click Política, lamented that a project threatening independent media has the support of the newly inaugurated government. He said he was never invited to any debate on the matter. The meeting at Secom was requested by journalist Aquias Santarém.

During the meeting, João Antonio mentioned an article published this Friday in which journalist Merval Pereira, from the Globo group, admits that the project's objective is to capture money from digital advertising.

"They created a business system that takes advertising away from the professional press and uses the news produced by it for free. It's a double loss for the press, which is the foundation of Brazilian democracy," wrote Merval.

In the article, the Globo journalist calls this practice theft and praises Australian legislation, the same legislation that made millionaire Murdoch a little richer. "We need to put an end to the mess," he said, defending the urgency of the project.

Platforms don't produce content, they only distribute it. And independent media channels have their own content. They analyze, for example, articles like Merval's, who defended Lava Jato, Sergio Moro, and Lula's imprisonment in 2018.

I participated in the online meeting with Secom and had the opportunity to remind them that, if the law had been in effect in 2018, much of the content about Lula's imprisonment could have been taken down. Not the content praising Moro, but the content claiming the sentence was illegal.

These texts, which history has shown to be correct, could at the time have been considered misinformation or even an attack on institutions. 

With this law in effect in 2016, could the coup against Dilma be called a coup? Formally, it was an impeachment, and that's what the so-called "professional press" called it.

The urgency of discussing such an important project as this one, to combat fake news, is not in the interest of democracy. 

At other times in history, haste has resulted in enormous damage. In 2013, there was also haste in rejecting Constitutional Amendment Proposal 37, which reaffirmed the constitutional mandate that the police investigate and the Public Prosecutor's Office exercises external control over the police.

There was also haste in approving Law 12.850 of 2013, which created the institution of plea bargaining. In both cases, the urgency resulted from the pressure of the June protests. 

Both the rejection of Constitutional Amendment Proposal 37 and the approval of the plea bargain law were essential events in setting up Lava Jato, which resulted in attacks on the heavy construction industry and changes to Petrobras' pricing policy, favoring manufacturers of refined products in other countries.

As Dieese has determined, Lava Jato directly caused the disinvestment of more than R$ 172 billion and the elimination of 4,4 million jobs. 

If Constitutional Amendment 37 had been approved and the plea bargain law did not exist, perhaps Dilma would not have been impeached, Lula would not have been a victim of political imprisonment, and Bolsonaro would have remained just a low-ranking congressman in the Chamber of Deputies.

I recommended that the meeting at Secom be recorded so that, in the future, there would be a record that half a dozen independent journalists were there appealing to the government not to endorse a bill that, while seemingly fair, could be used as an instrument against democracy. More debate is needed.

Independent media was built with great sacrifice and took time to consolidate, and today it has millions of followers. Weakening or even destroying it will be much faster. 

And then there will be no counterpoint when the "professional press," which I prefer to call the old press, produces disinformation, as it has done in many periods of history, whenever its liberal or neoliberal project has ceased to be implemented.

.xxx

Secretary João Brant asked the journalists who participated in the meeting to formally propose changes to the text under discussion in Congress. He made a point of saying that the project is not from the government, but that he supports the regulation of the platforms and that the speed of the process was a decision of the Chamber of Deputies, and the government did not oppose it, understanding that, after January 8th, this was a "window of opportunity" that opened up.

A new meeting will be held.