On Digital Sovereignty: The Global Implications of Brazil's X Standoff

By Juan Martín Marinangeli

Brazil's recent threat to block X (formerly Twitter) highlights an increasingly common dilemma in international affairs: how should democratic nations balance digital sovereignty against the global nature of social media and artificial intelligence (AI) platforms? While some view Brazil's stance as a necessary assertion of state authority, others see it as an alarming precedent for democratic nations worldwide. The stakes are particularly high as countries face a complex trade-off: assert control over digital spaces and risk setting troubling authoritarian precedents, or maintain a hands-off approach and potentially surrender sovereign authority over crucial aspects of their democratic discourse and emerging AI capabilities to foreign corporations. This challenge demands a new framework for international digital governance that emphasizes graduated enforcement mechanisms over blanket platform bans.

The confrontation erupted when Brazil's Supreme Federal Court ordered X to block certain accounts for alleged disinformation.[1] When X refused to comply, Judge Alexandre de Moraes escalated to threatening a complete platform suspension.  With 21.5 million users, Brazil ranks as X's sixth-largest market globally, making the platform a critical arena for political discourse and influence.[2]

Brazil's approach mirrors a broader international trend. The United States and European Union have contemplated similar measures against platforms like TikTok, while India has already implemented temporary bans on various social media services.[3] These actions reflect mounting frustration with platforms that often operate beyond national jurisdictions while wielding significant influence over domestic affairs. The 2016 U.S. presidential election starkly illustrated this risk, with revelations that foreign-controlled social media platforms were weaponized to spread targeted misinformation, potentially influencing voter behavior and challenging the integrity of the democratic process.[4]

Brazil's stance raises critical concerns for democratic governance and civil liberties. Platform blocking represents a drastic measure that could set dangerous precedents for restricting digital spaces. Turkey's systematic digital censorship offers a stark warning: the government's 2023 earthquake-era Twitter restriction was part of a long-standing pattern of internet control. Since the 2013 Gezi Park protests, Turkish authorities have consistently used legal mechanisms to throttle digital communication, silencing criticism by selectively restricting social media platforms during politically sensitive moments.[5] When democratic nations adopt tactics reminiscent of authoritarian regimes—even for seemingly justified reasons—they risk normalizing digital restrictions that could erode fundamental freedoms. Such actions threaten to push citizens toward less visible, more fragmented digital spaces, ultimately undermining the open dialogue essential to democratic discourse.

The international community must also consider the economic dimensions. Global tech platforms facilitate international commerce and communication, making platform blocking a decision with ripple effects far beyond national borders. In Iran, for instance, government-imposed internet and social media disruptions have incurred direct economic losses estimated at US$1.2 billion, with further cascading effects on employment, as every job lost in the digital economy eliminates an additional 1.54 jobs in the broader market.[6] Brazil's actions could influence how other nations approach digital regulation, potentially fragment the global internet into increasingly isolated national spheres.

Brazil's assertive stance extends beyond the X controversy. In July 2024, the country blocked Meta from using Brazilians' social media posts to train its AI models, revealing a broader pattern of digital sovereignty assertions.[7] Following similar restrictions in Europe, this decision demonstrates how emerging economies are increasingly willing to challenge Big Tech's data practices, particularly when they perceive the disparate treatment of their citizens compared to users in the Global North.[8]

This intersection of digital sovereignty and AI nationalism represents a new frontier in international relations. As nations race to establish themselves in the AI landscape, control over data—the lifeblood of AI development—has become a cornerstone of national strategy. For machine learning models, which form the backbone of modern AI, vast quantities of human-generated content are indispensable to fuel the algorithms. This data serves not only as a resource but as a competitive asset, enabling nations to develop AI systems tailored to their strategic goals and enhancing their standing in the global AI race.[9] Brazil's actions might suggest that developing nations are no longer content to serve as mere data sources for Western tech companies' AI ambitions. Instead, they're asserting what scholars call "AI sovereignty," or the capacity to understand, develop, and regulate AI systems within their borders.[10]

Yet X's response raises equally troubling questions about corporate power in the international order. The company's decision to create an @AlexandreFiles account—apparently aimed at exposing court orders—suggests a concerning willingness to challenge legitimate judicial authority.[11] When multinational corporations can effectively challenge state sovereignty, they undermine the international system's foundational principles.

The path forward requires nuanced platform governance that balances autonomy and control. Democratic nations must develop coordinated international frameworks protecting national sovereignty and digital rights, with host countries like the United States taking lead responsibility. These frameworks should use graduated enforcement mechanisms to ensure technological advancement doesn't compromise national autonomy or citizen privacy, making platform blocking a last resort.[12]

As this debate evolves, the international community must address several critical questions: How can democratic nations enforce their laws without resorting to platform blocking? What role should international organizations play in mediating disputes between states and platforms? And how can we preserve both national sovereignty and the global, interconnected nature of the internet?

Brazil's standoff with X transcends today's headlines—it's a wake-up call for the international community. As more nations assert their digital sovereignty, the choice becomes clear: either develop robust multilateral frameworks for platform governance, or watch the global internet fragment into national spheres of control. The precedent set today will determine whether democracy can thrive in tomorrow's digital world.

About the author

Juan Martín is a Social Sciences graduate from Torcuato Di Tella University (UTDT) and a master's candidate in International Politics and Economics at Universidad de San Andrés, where he focuses on the intersection of public policy, digital media, and emerging technologies. He has served as a consultant for IDB Lab projects and worked in strategic research and communications roles at both civil society organizations and Argentina's Chamber of Deputies. Currently, he is an Assistant Professor at UTDT and a Research and Communications Assistant at the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE).

Endnotes

  1. Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). Petição (PET) 12404. August 30, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://noticias-stf-wp-prd.s3.sa-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/uploads/2024/08/30171714/PET-12404-Assinada.pdf.

  2. “5 preguntas para entender por qué un juez en Brasil ordenó el bloqueo de la red social X en todo el país.” BBC News Mundo, August 30, 2024. Accessed November 17, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c0rwjll15yqo

  3. Marinangeli, Juan Martín, and Nicolás Zara, “TikTok bajo amenaza en Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea: ¿Qué implicaciones tiene para la libertad de expresión?” Observatorio Legislativo CELE, June 18, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://observatoriolegislativocele.com/tiktok-bajo-amenaza-en-estados-unidos-y-la-union-europea-que-implicaciones-tiene-para-la-libertad-de-expresion-por-juan-martin-marinangeli-y-nicolas-zara/; Germain, Thomas. “The Ghosts of India's TikTok: Social Media Ban,.” BBC Future, April 27, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240426-the-ghosts-of-indias-tiktok-social-media-ban. 

  4. Georgacopoulos, Christina and Grayce Mores, “How Fake News Affected the 2016 Presidential Election,”  LSU Fight Fake News, July 2020. Accessed November 17, 2024. https://faculty.lsu.edu/fakenews/elections/sixteen.php

  5. Haylamaz, Burak, “Shutting Down the Internet to Shut Down Criticism. The Turkish Government’s “Legal” Censorship in the Earthquakes’ Aftermath,” Verfassungsblog, February 17, 2023. Accessed November 17, 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/turkey-internet-earthquake/

  6. Skeadas, Theodora, Rehan Mirza and Maya Vishwanath, “Digital Disruption: Measuring the Social and Economic Costs of Internet Shutdowns & Throttling of Access to Twitter,” Tech Policy Press, September 25, 2023. Accessed November 17, 2024. https://www.techpolicy.press/digital-disruption-measuring-the-social-and-economic-costs-of-internet-shutdowns-throttling-of-access-to-twitter/

  7. Cursino, Malu, “Brazil blocks Meta from using social media posts to train AI,” BBC News, July 3, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7291l3nvwvo; Pohle, Julia and Thorsten Thiel, “Digital Sovereignty,”, Internet Policy Review, 9(4). (December, 2020). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532 

  8. “Widening Digital Gap between Developed, Developing States Threatening to Exclude World’s Poorest from Next Industrial Revolution, Speakers Tell Second Committee,” United Nations, October 6, 2023. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://press.un.org/en/2023/gaef3587.doc.htm

  9. Heumann, Stefan and Nicolas Zahn, “Benchmarking National AI Strategies. Why and how indicators and monitoring can support agile implementation,” Stiftung Neue Verantwortung. (September 26, 2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502283

  10. Aaronson, Susan Ariel , “The Age of AI Nationalism and its Effects,” CIGI Papers No. 306. (September, 2024). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4803311

  11. @AlexandreFiles. X (formerly Twitter). Accessed October 15, 2024. https://x.com/AlexandreFiles.

  12. Marinangeli, Juan Martín, “La suspensión de X en Brasil: entre la soberanía y la censura,” Observatorio Legislativo CELE, September 16, 2024. Accessed October 15, 2024. https://observatoriolegislativocele.com/la-suspension-de-x-en-brasil-entre-la-soberania-y-la-censura-juan-martin-marinangeli/

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the editors or the journal.

Op-EdYale Journal of International AffairsBrazil, South America, Fall 2024