O Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) deu prazo de 24 horas para que a Meta comprove que suas plataformas digitais oferecem tratamento igualitário às campanhas do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) e do senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), candidatos que disputam o segundo turno da eleição presidencial. A determinação foi feita pelo ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze nesta segunda-feira (19), após o magistrado considerar insuficientes as explicações apresentadas pela empresa.

A Meta, responsável pelo Instagram, Facebook e WhatsApp, poderá ter a multa diária elevada de R$ 500 mil para R$ 1 milhão caso não cumpra o novo prazo. Segundo Bellizze, a empresa não demonstrou satisfatoriamente que adotou as medidas exigidas pela Justiça Eleitoral para impedir favorecimento ou prejuízo artificial a qualquer uma das candidaturas.

Na decisão, o ministro criticou a tentativa da companhia de estabelecer prazos próprios para responder às determinações judiciais, além da apresentação de relatórios em inglês e documentos que, segundo ele, não esclareciam adequadamente as providências adotadas.

“Incumbe às partes cumprir com exatidão as decisões judiciais, e não criar embaraços à sua efetivação”, escreveu Bellizze.

A cobrança ocorre depois que o plenário do TSE confirmou, na sexta-feira (16), a decisão que obriga a Meta a assegurar condições equivalentes às duas campanhas em seus sistemas de distribuição de conteúdo, recomendação e inteligência artificial.

Denúncia partiu da campanha de Lula

O caso chegou ao tribunal após a campanha de Lula denunciar supostas restrições à circulação de publicações relacionadas ao presidente nas plataformas da Meta. Os advogados do petista alegaram que os conteúdos da candidatura alcançavam menos usuários, enquanto o perfil de Flávio Bolsonaro aparecia em recomendações automáticas.

Outro ponto questionado foi o comportamento da Meta AI, ferramenta de inteligência artificial disponível no WhatsApp. Segundo a representação apresentada pela campanha de Lula, o sistema se recusava a produzir materiais eleitorais favoráveis ao presidente, mas atendia a solicitações semelhantes envolvendo o senador.

Mensagens internas da empresa obtidas pela Folha de S.Paulo também apontaram problemas que teriam prejudicado contas ligadas a Lula. Os registros mencionam restrições ao impulsionamento de publicações e a recomendação algorítmica do perfil de Flávio.

A Meta atribuiu os episódios a falhas técnicas e negou que tenha favorecido deliberadamente um dos candidatos. Em manifestação divulgada anteriormente, a empresa afirmou que os problemas não se restringiam ao Brasil e faziam parte de dificuldades técnicas de alcance global.

O que a decisão proíbe

A determinação do TSE impede que a Meta reduza artificialmente o alcance de conteúdos político-eleitorais relacionados a Lula ou Flávio. A proibição inclui alterações na distribuição das publicações, retirada de recomendações, restrições aos resultados de busca e mudanças de métricas que possam prejudicar uma das candidaturas.

A empresa também deverá aplicar critérios equivalentes às duas campanhas em suas ferramentas de inteligência artificial. A ordem busca impedir que os sistemas ofereçam respostas diferentes a solicitações semelhantes em razão do candidato envolvido.

O ministro ressaltou que a apresentação de informações sobre a ausência de comportamento inautêntico coordenado não substitui a obrigação de demonstrar quais medidas foram efetivamente adotadas para cumprir a decisão judicial.

Estudos apontam anúncios eleitorais irregulares

A discussão sobre a atuação das plataformas digitais ocorre em meio a outras denúncias envolvendo publicidade política na internet.

Um estudo da organização britânica Eko, divulgado em setembro, apontou que a Meta aceitou anúncios políticos direcionados ao público brasileiro, pagos por uma conta sediada nos Estados Unidos. Segundo a pesquisa, as peças utilizavam inteligência artificial sem a identificação exigida e apresentavam informações eleitorais falsas.

Outro levantamento, realizado pelo NetLab, laboratório de estudos de internet e redes sociais da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), identificou anúncios políticos considerados irregulares no país e financiados a partir do exterior.

A decisão do TSE não representa, por si só, uma conclusão definitiva de que a Meta tenha interferido deliberadamente na eleição em favor de Flávio Bolsonaro. A empresa nega favorecimento, e o tribunal exige que ela demonstre o cumprimento das regras de igualdade entre as candidaturas.

The post Meta tem 24h para comprovar tratamento igualitário a Lula e Flávio appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.

Two hundred years ago, the invention of Braille allowed blind people to read and write. By the 1930s, recorded sound made "talking books" possible. Developments in text-to-speech technology in the 1980s made reading more accessible and widespread. Then came personal computers, screen readers, smartphones, cameras, GPS, voice assistants, and myriad other technological advancements that gave blind people more independence.

Now a pair of sunglasses can read your mail, describe the person in front of you, tell you what is on a restaurant menu, and help you find your way home. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is using artificial intelligence to turn glasses into a hands-free companion. For any person, this technology is impressive. For the approximately 700,000 Americans who are blind, it is potentially life-changing.

In June, Meta announced that every single blind veteran in the United States could receive its AI glasses free of charge. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), approximately 130,000 American veterans are legally blind, and over 1 million veterans have vision impairment that makes performing daily activities difficult. Don Overton, a blind veteran and former executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association, told Meta that he had "lost [his] independence" after losing his eyesight in a bunker explosion. "The moment I put on my Ray-Ban Meta glasses," he said, "I got my independence back."

The V.A. has a history of failing to fully support blind veterans. In 2022, the V.A.'s Office of Inspector General found that claims processors were instructed to contact visually impaired veterans by telephone, but 87 percent of claims showed no evidence of these calls ever happening. A 2022 investigation by the Senate's Special Committee on Aging found that "roughly 90 percent" of V.A. websites were not compliant with federal accessibility requirements. "We feel we've been abandoned by the agency that is tasked with providing our care and services for us," Overton told The Washington Post in 2022.

Meta's AI glasses have come under fire due to their privacy risks. The company was sued in March after Swedish publications Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten reportedly found that Meta's contractors in Kenya were accessing videos by users of their AI glasses. "We see everything, from living rooms to naked bodies," one worker noted.

Users should be aware of those risks. Still, for blind veterans, companies such as Meta have stepped up to fill a gap that the government has failed to address.

The post Meta Is Gifting AI Glasses to Blind Veterans: 'I Got My Independence Back' appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Four police officers woke and arrested Will Fraser, a 15-year-old Reform U.K. activist, at his Walsall home. More than two months later, police still have not clearly explained the exact reason for the arrest, but The Telegraph found that it stems from a few Facebook posts. For example, Fraser criticized a Tory member of the Wolverhampton City Council for wearing casual clothes at meetings, then later remarked that he was glad the councilor was "not looking like a rent boy." Officers took Fraser to the station, questioned him, took his DNA and fingerprints, seized his phone and laptop, and released him on bail while banning him from council meetings. His lawyers and free speech groups say the arrest was an overreaction that threatens free speech, while the councilor in question claims the posts felt like targeted harassment.

The post Brickbat: Penalty for Posting appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Entre las fallas se cuentan interrupciones del servicio de anuncios, caídas en el recuento de visualizaciones de publicaciones favorables al presidente brasileño y bloqueos temporales de la promoción de contenidos en Instagram.

The Social Reckoning, Aaron Sorkin's latest jab at Big Tech, is conceived as a political and social prosecution of Facebook.

The social network and its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, in the movie's view, are responsible for the spread of misinformation, the decline of journalism, the polarization of the electorate, and the radicalization of specific individuals who go on to commit heinous acts of anti-democratic violence. In its final moments, the film strongly implies that Facebook and its engagement-boosting algorithms are directly responsible for the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Donald Trump, the election-losing president whose incendiary speech and repeated falsehoods about the results of the 2020 election preceded the riot, is never named in the movie. In a movie that positions itself as bold and brave, it's an omission of stunning, and revealing, cowardice. 

To bring Trump into the picture would have complicated Sorkin's just-so story, in which Facebook's refusal to fact-check political ads and decision to boost engagement through a change in its recommendation algorithm are the central, and, at least within the movie's narrow frame, even sole cause of all that ails American democracy. Sorkin's story has no room for nuance or ambiguity, no interest in the larger political-social dynamics at work in the late 2010s and early 2020s, no time for disconfirming data that violates his narrative. He has found a pure villain in Facebook's founder, and that's the only story he wants to tell. 

Like so many of Sorkin's films, The Social Reckoning is structured around what amounts to a trial, in this case a mock congressional hearing set up for Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, in advance of an appearance on Capitol Hill. The action inside that room is informed by a larger story that revolves around Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz's (played by Jeremy Allen White) quest to understand and uncover documentation that led to his award-winning investigative series, The Facebook Files. Horwitz works with Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook engineer who has concerns about the company's practices and begins leaking information in hopes of causing internal change. She's an anxious, socially awkward recluse; he's a tech-ignorant reporter who ended up on the Big Tech beat. The pairing allows Sorkin to build scene after scene of exposition and explanation, in which Haugen details various Facebook technical decisions believed to have dire social consequences. 

Most notable among these is an algorithmic switch to something called "MSI," or "meaningful social interactions." Essentially, the network prioritized depth of engagement over simple likes, leading to a boost in usage, as well as an increase in exposure to radical groups and content. The movie poses as a sophisticated journalistic explainer, but its core argument is quite simple: Facebook changed its algorithm in a way that benefited the company but harmed society by pushing content from hate groups and other disreputable types. That, in turn, led to January 6. Case closed. 

But what if the case isn't so simple? In these pages, Elizabeth Nolan Brown has outlined the many ways in which social media algorithms, especially on Facebook, have been unjustly maligned: Instead of causing polarization by locking people into narrow political bubbles, they can offer greater exposure to opposing views and even promote democratic virtues. The supposed negative effects of tech on children are, at minimum, disputed and in most cases probably overstated; some studies suggest that tech can enhance youth mental health. It's notable that Sorkin's story uses the violent calamity of January 6—a truly dark day for America—as his climactic argument. He can't use the election of 2020, because that election was won by Joe Biden. So he falls back to the ugliness of the riot, while ignoring Donald Trump. 

The movie is framed in personal terms via the story of one woman's radicalization. The woman—rich, white, entitled, casually racist during a drunken encounter with cops that she films and posts on social media—turns out to be a friend of Haugen's, which is what drives her to go public about her employer. Sorkin uses the woman as a symbol of all that Facebook has done wrong; she's a consequence of Zuckerberg's disregard for democracy and truth.  

But in real life, Haugen's never-named radicalized friend was a man, not a woman, who became obsessed with conspiratorial notions about politics, not a racist social-media troll. Sorkin's film is fiction, a dramatic retelling of events rather than a just-the-facts journalistic account, so it doesn't quite need to be held to the same standard. But it's notable that he has to massage the details in order to make his point. Perhaps he's doing so in service of a deeper truth. But that deeper truth isn't strictly true. 

Humans are messy and complicated, and so is democracy. But Sorkin can't handle those complications. Instead, he delivers a smug, simplistic narrative that traffics in borderline misinformation while pretending to crusade for the truth. Maybe what we really need is a reckoning with Aaron Sorkin. 

The post Aaron Sorkin's New Anti-Facebook Movie Is a Stunning Act of Self-Satisfied Cowardice appeared first on Reason Magazine.

AF! Cristiano Ronaldo decidiu abandonar o estágio da Seleção Nacional na Dinamarca depois de considerar que o treinador português não cumpriu compromissos assumidos em reuniões privadas. Numa justificação publicada na sua página de Facebook, o capitão luso afirma que a saída resultou de uma “quebra absoluta de confiança” e não de qualquer discordância com opções […]

Meta wants to build one of the largest data centers in the world in rural Louisiana. 

The facility, known as Hyperion, is being built to train and operate the artificial intelligence systems behind Meta’s products. What began as a $10 billion proposal has since ballooned into a more than $50 billion development spanning nearly 10 million square feet and roughly 3,650 acres. At full scale, Hyperion is expected to require 5 gigawatts of computing capacity, making it the largest data center in Meta’s global fleet and one of the largest ever built. According to Meta, the project is expected to employ around 7,500 workers during peak construction and support 1,000 permanent jobs once operational.

For residents of Richland Parish, the arrival of Meta has brought both desperately needed jobs and profound uncertainty about what the project will mean for the community. The enormous facility is being constructed on former farmland and will require an equally immense network of infrastructure to support it. In nearby Rayville, many residents view Meta as an economic lifeline after decades of limited employment opportunities, with local families securing jobs that pay far more than the parish’s median income. But the influx of highly paid, out-of-town workers has also driven up rent and the cost of living as landlords and businesses increasingly orient themselves toward Meta employees. Landlords routinely raise the rent of low-income housing in order to price out local tenants in favor of contractors, forcing residents to move out of the area to afford housing.

Bringing Meta to Richland Parish

Richland Parish is a rural stretch of northeast Louisiana dominated by flat, fertile land rich with cotton, soybeans, corn, and rice. The parish’s economy has historically revolved around large-scale, row-crop farming, but declining farm incomes and population loss has strained the region in recent generations. Richland’s employment rate sits at 49.9%, 9.4% below the already dismal state average, with a median income of $53,544. A total of 36% of the 20,000 person population is Black. Rayville, the parish seat, is 80% Black. For decades, Richland has been far removed from the state’s economic centers of New Orleans and Baton Rouge, receiving little of the investment that has flowed into Louisiana’s larger cities.

That changed in January 2024, when Entergy Louisiana, the state’s monopoly power company, began a year-long courting ritual to bring Meta’s largest data center to the impoverished parish. Following months of backdoor deals and nondisclosure agreements, Meta announced plans to build a $10 billion, 4-million-square-foot data center on a 2,250-acre flood plain. In July 2026, Meta expanded the project, committing more than $50 billion and nearly 10 million square feet to what may become the largest data center in the company’s fleet and home to its massive Hyperion AI training cluster.

Both Meta and Entergy have been quick to dismiss community concerns, with state officials claiming that “whatever comes out of it will be better than the mostly fallow farmland that was there.” Meta likewise touts a laundry list of benefits it promises to bring to the area, most notably permanent jobs and increased tax revenue. The company now claims that the expanded Hyperion AI center will create more than 1,000 permanent jobs, alongside thousands of temporary construction jobs.

But Meta has refused to provide the evidence behind those projections. On August 12, the Louisiana Public Service Commission voted 3–1 to overturn the recommendation of an administrative law judge that Meta turn over information substantiating its projected job creation, economic impact, and electricity demand, effectively shielding the company’s claims from public scrutiny.

Meta’s empty promises of economic growth

The public’s skepticism is warranted. Data centers routinely generate thousands of temporary construction jobs while creating only a fraction as many permanent positions once construction ends. Meta’s projects in Texas and Oklahoma, for example, are expected to leave only around 100 operational jobs each after thousands of construction workers leave. QTS similarly estimates that a data center campus in York County, North Carolina will produce roughly 1,000 construction jobs but only about 100 permanent onsite positions. Even Hyperion’s original proposal called for roughly 5,000 construction workers but only 500 permanent operational employees. None of these figures guarantee that the permanent positions will go to Richland Parish residents. Meta has offered assurances about local hiring, but there is no binding commitment requiring the company to employ local workers.

Meta also claims the data center will bring tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue to Richland Parish, an argument it bolsters by pointing to the 2,000% increase in sales-tax totals since construction began – $50,000 of which has funded bonuses for some local schoolteachers. But that windfall is largely a product of the construction boom itself, not a sustainable source of revenue generated by the completed data center. The teacher bonuses are distributed through Richland Parish’s longstanding one-cent sales-tax program, which provides annual “13th checks” to eligible school employees. As those construction workers spend money in the parish, that pool has temporarily grown; once construction ends, so will much of the revenue feeding it. The result is a temporary infusion of money that can obscure the longer-term fiscal consequences of the project. When the construction boom ends, Richland Parish will be left with the costs of a massive industrial project, and fewer public resources to pay for them.

Cementing Louisiana’s dependence on fossil fuels amid environmental devastation

The environmental impact of the Meta data center could also be deadly for residents of Richland Parish and Louisiana as a whole. The Hyperion AI data center is expected to consume roughly half of the state’s electrical capacity – approximately seven times the energy consumed by the entire city of New Orleans – placing enormous new demands on Entergy’s already overburdened power grid. Louisiana residents know what a fragile electrical system can mean in a disaster. After Hurricane Katrina, Entergy’s restoration efforts took 42 days to complete across its service territory. In 2021, Hurricane Ida left nearly 950,000 customers without power after an Entergy tower fell into the Mississippi River, a disaster that required 15 days of restoration work just to bring more than 90% of affected customers back online.

Rather than address these vulnerabilities, Entergy’s proposed solution to Hyperion’s unprecedented energy demands is to build an entirely new fossil-fuel energy infrastructure around the data center. The company plans to construct ten natural-gas power plants, including seven new facilities capable of generating roughly 5.2 gigawatts of electricity, alongside new transmission lines and a massive 500-kilovolt substation. Meta, Entergy, and the Louisiana state government are working to present these projects as investments that will strengthen Louisiana’s electrical grid and improve reliability for ordinary customers.

Louisiana is being asked to construct an enormous new fossil-fuel-based energy system so that a single private corporation can consume an unprecedented share of its electricity. More generation may increase capacity, but it does not eliminate the physical vulnerabilities that have repeatedly left Louisiana residents without power after hurricanes. Instead, the state is doubling down on a centralized, fossil-fuel-dependent grid whose infrastructure will remain vulnerable to the same storms that have already decimated Louisiana’s communities.

Entergy’s catastrophic deal with Meta has arrived as Louisiana is already on the front lines of an environmental crisis. The state has lost more than 2,000 square miles of coastal land since 1932 and continues to lose more than 16 square miles each year. The state has experienced 31 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters since 2018, leaving communities to repeatedly rebuild from hurricanes, flooding, and extreme weather. Meanwhile, along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, the area known as “Cancer Alley” contains a dense concentration of petrochemical and chemical facilities, exposing surrounding communities to significant air pollution and toxic emissions which have resulted in a cancer rate fifty times higher than the national average.

People of Louisiana reject corporate profiteering

These environmental pressures are only compounded by an affordability crisis. In 2024, 49% of Louisiana households – nearly 900,000 – were either living in poverty or earning too little to afford basic necessities. A basic survival budget costs an estimated $30,708 a year for a single adult and $81,912 for a family of four, before accounting for savings or emergencies such as climate disaster. All the while, the state is being asked to absorb another enormous industrial project while nearly half of its households are already struggling financially and its communities confront environmental catastrophe.

Read more: A massive AI data center transforms rural Utah into a national flashpoint

Community opposition to the Hyperion project reflects a growing recognition that the promised benefits of corporate development cannot be separated from the costs that residents will be asked to bear. The fight is not simply over one data center, but over who gets to determine what Louisiana’s resources are used for and whose interests development is meant to serve. For generations, Louisiana communities have been told that jobs and investment require accepting pollution, environmental destruction, and the transformation of local resources into private profit.

Hyperion offers another version of the same bargain: enormous amounts of Louisiana’s land, electricity, water, and public infrastructure would be redirected toward the interests of one of the world’s largest technology companies. And the resistance to that bargain extends far beyond Richland Parish. Hundreds of Louisianans have mobilized around Public Service Commission meetings, traveling to the capital to demand that regulators prioritize the people who will bear the costs of Meta and Entergy’s expansion. Their concerns have repeatedly been dismissed or overridden by a majority of commissioners, even as the commission has approved billions of dollars in new generation and transmission infrastructure for the project. A 2024 investigation by the Louisiana Illuminator and Floodlight found that nearly 43% of campaign contributions to Louisiana utility commissioners over the previous decade came from utilities, energy-related businesses, and their attorneys and lobbyists, with Entergy Louisiana and its executives and family members contributing roughly $350,000.

The resistance emerging across Louisiana is more than a battle over a single data center. It is a decisive stand for the right of Louisianians to determine their own future, rather than surrender it to corporate interests. This is a battle for the future of working people everywhere, and the people have vowed to keep fighting. 

Kieran Spencer is a New Orleans-based historian and organizer.

Um experimento da Anistia Internacional mostrou que as medidas da Meta não estão sendo suficientes para combater a desinformação no Facebook na campanha eleitoral brasileira. A ONG internacional submeteu 14 anúncios com conteúdo desinformativo sobre as eleições brasileiras e um neutro. Oito foram aceitos, enquanto os sete restantes (incluindo o neutro) foram sinalizados para verificação de identidade por parecerem relacionados a uma questão social, eleição ou política, em vez de serem rejeitados especificamente por conterem desinformação eleitoral. Nenhum deles foi postado publicamente, portanto, os usuários não tiveram contato com o conteúdo.

Os 14 anúncios desinformativos do experimento da Anistia Internacional incluíam alegações de que as eleições de outubro deste ano seriam fraudadas e pedidos de intervenção militar. Com exceção do anúncio neutro, os 14 violaram as próprias políticas da Meta sobre desinformação, especificamente a seção relacionada à interferência na votação ou no comparecimento dos eleitores. A definição de desinformação da Meta inclui “conteúdo com potencial para interferir em processos políticos”.

Três de quatro anúncios que pediam intervenção militar foram aprovados. Um deles dizia: “Precisamos de uma revolução militar. Não vote nas eleições e os militares vão tomar o poder se houver menos de 50% de comparecimento nas urnas”.

O anúncio neutro foi incluído pela Anistia para testar a exigência de verificação de identidade feita pela Meta para a postagem de quaisquer conteúdos relacionados a eleições.

Segundo a ONG, a conta usada para o teste não concluiu o processo de verificação de identidade para manter o perfil mais neutro, de modo a evitar influência do algoritmo. Portanto, não há como saber se, caso fosse feita a verificação de identidade da conta, os anúncios seriam aceitos ou não.

Em 2025, o Facebook tinha 109,2 milhões de usuários no Brasil, segundo a plataforma de dados Statista; já o Instagram é mais popular e contava com 146 milhões de contas no mesmo ano. Os anúncios podem circular entre as plataformas.

Pouco tempo para as novas regras

De acordo com a descrição do experimento da Anistia Internacional, os anúncios refletiam “três táticas frequentemente utilizadas por políticos e candidatos para apoiar práticas autoritárias”: “deslegitimação eleitoral”, com conteúdos que minam a confiança no sistema de votação brasileiro e nos resultados; “construção do inimigo”, colocando adversários políticos e a Justiça como ameaças; e “autoritarismo com foco na segurança pública”, que traz o uso da força, da intervenção militar ou de um líder forte como respostas necessárias ao crime.

“Em vez de zelar pela participação eleitoral e pelo acesso à informação precisa, estes sistemas de moderação correm o risco de aprovar conteúdo nocivo [ao processo eleitoral]”, diz Ummar Bashir, pesquisador e consultor da Anistia para Inteligência Artificial e Direitos Humanos.

Os anúncios foram enviados de fora do Brasil, do escritório da Anistia em Londres, sem uso de VPN, recurso que poderia simular que o conteúdo fora postado em território nacional. Para a ONG, a aprovação é preocupante porque mostra “vulnerabilidades passíveis de exploração por atores nacionais ou estrangeiros que busquem influenciar processos eleitorais”.

A Meta não respondeu aos questionamentos da ONG sobre as falhas de moderação que permitiram ao Facebook aceitar os anúncios enganosos.

Questionada pela Pública, a empresa disse que investe “recursos significativos para proteger o processo eleitoral de 2026 no Brasil – da transparência em publicidade, líder do setor, à aplicação de protocolos rigorosos para anúncios sobre questões sociais, eleições ou política – e continuaremos a fazê-lo.” Afirmou ainda que o relatório da Anistia Internacional se baseou em uma amostra pequena de anúncios que nunca foram publicados. “Não reflete a escala do nosso trabalho. Nosso processo de análise de anúncios possui diversas camadas de análise e detecção, antes e depois deles serem publicados”.  

Em seu site institucional, a empresa informa que usa inteligência artificial para identificar, nos anúncios, conteúdos que possam violar suas políticas. Em seguida, segundo a empresa, o conteúdo é avaliado automaticamente ou por revisores humanos e, quando uma violação é confirmada, são aplicadas medidas como remoção, restrição ou rejeição dos anúncios, de acordo com os Padrões da Comunidade da Meta. Este conjunto de regras, de acordo com a companhia, “é baseado no feedback de usuários e especialistas em tecnologia, segurança pública e direitos humanos”.

Em 2025, dias antes da posse do presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, o CEO da Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, anunciou uma mudança drástica nas políticas de moderação de conteúdo e checagem de dados. Segundo ele, a intenção era combater uma suposta “censura” promovida por checadores “enviesados”, dos quais ele prometeu se livrar.

“O teste da Anistia aponta motivos para preocupação, sim. No Brasil, estamos diante de uma nova exigência que altera bastante a forma de condução dos negócios de todas as plataformas, não só da Meta”, avalia Fernando Neisser, professor de Direito Eleitoral da FGV/SP. Ele se refere ao julgamento do Supremo Tribunal Federal que revisou o Artigo 19 do Marco Civil da Internet e decidiu, em 2025, que as plataformas não precisam esperar decisões judiciais para derrubar conteúdos.

Neisser lembra ainda as novas obrigações impostas pelos planos de conformidade entregues pelas plataformas ao TSE na primeira quinzena de agosto de 2026. Segundo o professor, eles determinam a necessidade de verificação temática de publicidade paga por parte das empresas de tecnologia. Os planos ainda não foram divulgados na íntegra até o fechamento desta reportagem.

“Para certos assuntos, como pornografia infantil, a verificação é fácil de ser feita com filtro automatizado. Mas é muito difícil ainda filtrar de forma automatizada temas tão contextuais, como discurso de ódio e atos antidemocráticos”, avalia Neisser, que diz que a aplicação dessas regras na eleição deste ano é pouco provável. “É muito difícil exigir a criação de mecanismos num prazo tão curto. Eles foram pedidos basicamente às vésperas do início do processo eleitoral. Não é crível imaginar uma mudança de procedimentos em um prazo tão exíguo”.

Para Jurema Werneck, diretora-executiva da Anistia Internacional Brasil, a forma como a Meta lida com a desinformação também contribui para o modelo de negócios da empresa de Zuckerberg. “O experimento mostra que a Meta não está fazendo o suficiente para impedir que sua plataforma seja um vetor de desinformação, ao mesmo tempo em que continua lucrando com os sistemas de conteúdo e publicidade que possibilitam sua disseminação”.

*Atualização às 15h18 de 25/08/2026: Inserimos o retorno da Meta.

Mark Seal is very fond of the phrase “Who Ya Gonna Call? Scam Busters!”—he uses it three times in this piece. Yet it’s still refreshing, despite being from last year, to read a story that focuses on the painstaking effort to trace scammers rather than lingering on the victim’s humiliation (looking at you, Netflix). Seal does explain how a French woman named Anne fell for “Brad Pitt” online and subsequently lost her fortune to the scammers, but her supposed savior, cyber‑detective Marwan Ouarab—sporting a cat‑in‑a‑trench‑coat T‑shirt—gets most of the page time here. Ouarab apparently found the scammers within 48 hours, but no charges have been made, and Anne is still fighting to recover any of her money. You can call the scam busters, but you’re still in for a long wait.

“All during the scam, Anne was suspecting something,” he says over a vanilla flan, a sweet treat for a very determined guy. “But every time, the crooks had fine words, the right words. They were really poetic. They knew what words were right for her. They really understood Anne’s psychological profile.”

It was a classic “sentimental scam,” says Ouarab—a carefully produced, all-encompassing “theatrical event” that uses love as the bait to hook the target and then envelops them completely in the con. (In this case, the divorced interior designer, Anne, whose last name has not been made public, and a convincing facsimile of Brad Pitt, achieved via A.I., deepfake technology, and, according to Ouarab, “ridiculous photoshop tools to create pictures of the fake Brad in his hospital bed.”)