Meta says it treats Brazil’s presidential rivals equally, answering election interference allegations with a technical report. Its defense deserves scrutiny alongside the accusations, because documented failures, political disadvantage, and deliberate manipulation are distinct claims that require different kinds of credible evidence.
Meta Answers, but Questions Still Remain
Outside Meta’s São Paulo headquarters on Monday, about 200 demonstrators brought a familiar Brazilian political instrument, the street protest, to an unfamiliar gatekeeper. Six days before the presidential runoff, supporters of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva accused the company of suppressing their candidate while promoting Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. “Meta cannot be an invisible judge of the electoral process,” they argued.
On Tuesday, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp told the Superior Electoral Court that both campaigns receive “equal and nondiscriminatory” treatment. Meta said it was complying with all 17 court requirements governing political content distribution and electoral advertising and submitted a technical report as evidence of compliance.
The response followed Monday’s order, which gave Meta 24 hours to demonstrate equal treatment after complaints from both rival campaigns. Submitting a technical report advances the process; it does not establish that the court has independently verified its conclusions. Nor does a demand for information establish deliberate interference.
The strongest allegations concern specific documented failures. Meta acknowledges that Lula’s advertising account was mistakenly deactivated for slightly more than an hour in September. Another malfunction in October prevented advertisers, including Lula’s campaign, from promoting existing Instagram posts, although other advertising routes remained available. These were actual interruptions, not simply disappointing engagement.
Reported internal messages also described restrictions that hurt Lula and recommendations that favored Flávio, strengthening the case for an independent examination of events.
The company also acknowledges a weakness in its artificial intelligence safeguards: some prompts combining “Flávio” with his ballot number produced campaign images despite restrictions. But Meta says “Luiz” combined with Lula’s number could also bypass those safeguards. That qualification matters. Selective examples can establish inconsistent performance without demonstrating a system designed to favor one candidate.
Three questions remain distinct: whether systems malfunctioned, whether failures disproportionately disadvantaged one campaign, and whether anyone deliberately engineered that disadvantage. The first is established; the second shows indications. Measuring its extent requires comparative records. Proving intent requires further evidence. None establishes how many voters changed their minds.
Present compliance also cannot settle every earlier complaint. A repaired system may operate fairly today while leaving unanswered whether previous restrictions unfairly deprived either campaign of valuable exposure.
What the Numbers Cannot Tell Us
Consider the claim, repeated at the protest, that 70% of Brazilians obtain news from Instagram. Without an identifiable survey, sampling method, or definition of news consumption, that figure cannot responsibly describe the entire population. Using Instagram, encountering news there, and depending on it for political information are different behaviors.
The same discipline applies to platform statistics. Meta says an October counting malfunction affected creators in more than 100 countries, leaving video counters frozen or incorrect while distribution continued. If accurate, a falling or stalled counter would reveal broken measurement rather than suppressed speech. The explanation needs verification, but the distinction is fundamental.
An audit must compare actual delivery before and during restrictions, accounting for advertising spending, audience size, posting frequency, and content format. It must distinguish paid promotion from ordinary recommendations. A campaign that publishes more engaging videos can legitimately get more views. Equal treatment cannot mean a judicial guarantee of equal popularity.
Brazil has reason to take smaller disparities seriously. In 2022, Lula defeated Jair Bolsonaro by 50.90% to 49.10%, a margin of about 2.14 million valid votes. That narrow result explains anxiety about voter access. It cannot convert impressions into ballots: repeated views may reach the same committed supporter, while another voter scrolls past without absorbing anything.
Sovereignty Beyond the Slogan
“Digital sovereignty is no joke,” activist Veronyka Gimenes told the protest. Her warning identifies a serious imbalance: Brazilian institutions must protect an election while a foreign corporation holds much of the information needed to evaluate its own conduct. The regulated company is also the principal custodian of the evidence.
That dependence carries historical weight in a country accustomed to concentrated broadcasting power. Moving political communication onto phones does not automatically disperse control. For movements trying to reach working people, inexpensive distribution offers access that established media may not provide. Dependence deepens when those same channels can restrict visibility without an explanation users can meaningfully challenge.
Still, calling this “digital colonialism” supplies an interpretation, not proof of a coordinated foreign operation. Signs pairing Mark Zuckerberg with Donald Trump cannot establish instructions, financing, or collusion. Allegations stretching back to Jair Bolsonaro’s 2018 victory likewise require evidence for each episode, rather than treating accumulated suspicion as a continuous conspiracy.
Tiana Cauton’s promise of Brazilian social platforms during a fourth Lula term offers an appealing escape. Yet domestic ownership alone would not ensure independence. A government can also pressure a platform. Meaningful sovereignty requires enforceable rights, credible oversight, and room for opposition voices, regardless of which party controls the presidency.
For the people outside the headquarters, the demand should outlast Sunday. Brazil needs access to evidence, remedies before missed opportunities become permanent, and rules that protect an opponent as firmly as an ally. Nobody should have to accept corporate assurances on faith. Nobody should be asked to accept a stolen election story on faith either.