The longstanding battle between Big Tech and governments has ramped up. Social media’s role in spreading disinformation or building digital advertising monopolies has led to legal — and verbal — disputes and ignited concerns about the future of the internet.
As courts have tried to keep up with new regulations aimed at holding tech giants accountable, the influence of platforms such as X, Telegram, Google, and Meta has grown immensely.
Regulators have struggled to get a grip when Big Tech has fought back. With battles in Brazil, the US, the EU and the UK all ongoing, can Big Tech platforms balance free speech, user privacy, and legal responsibilities in a rapidly changing landscape?
Misinformation on social media platforms has become a significant issue in Brazil, especially during politically sensitive periods like elections.
A survey conducted in September 2021 revealed around 77% of Brazilians considered fake news about politicians and the Supreme Federal Court a threat to democracy.
The situation escalated after the 2023 election, in which President Jair Bolsonaro lost to his predecessor, Lula da Silva (aka Lula).
In 2024, the proliferation of such content on the country’s eighth most popular social media platform (with 24.3 million users) X — under the leadership of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk — led to the platform’s complete banning in Brazil.
Tensions between X and the Brazilian government reached boiling point in August 2024 when Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the platform to block accounts belonging to journalists and politicians accused of spreading misinformation.
When X failed to comply with Justice de Moraes’s orders, the judge warned of severe legal consequences, including the arrest of X’s legal representatives in Brazil.
X’s decision to remove its legal representation from Brazil escalated the situation further.
This culminated on August 30, when Judge de Moraes issued an order for the “immediate, complete, and total suspension” of X’s operations across Brazil, effectively banning the platform.
Judge de Moraes pointed out that other tech companies, including Meta and Google, had complied with similar rulings, underscoring the legal obligations of foreign firms operating in Brazil.
By September 2, 2024, a Supreme Court (STF) panel had upheld de Moraes’s ruling, confirming that X would remain suspended until X fulfilled all court orders.
Notably, the ruling also fined individuals who attempted to access the platform using VPNs — an unprecedented move in global tech regulation.
Since purchasing X in 2022, Musk, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist”, has reinstated numerous previously banned accounts, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, gaining him both support and disdain.
However, Musk’s approach to free speech has complicated his relationship with various governments.
His critics have pointed out inconsistencies in his stance, noting that while he resisted calls for stricter moderation in countries like Brazil and Australia, he complied with government orders in places like Turkey and India, where X was required to remove content critical of those nations’ political leaders.
This selective approach has led some to question whether Musk’s commitment to free speech extends only to individuals and viewpoints he supports, as seen by his apparent sympathies toward former President Bolsonaro and Argentina’s new President, Javier Milei.
The case highlights the increasing tensions between tech companies and national governments over online content regulation. Victoria Lee, Founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, argues that this situation underscores the need for regulatory frameworks that balance the principles of free speech with the growing threats of misinformation.
“The X case in Brazil is a reminder of how social media platforms can influence political discussions,” she explains. “It shows that we need regulations that allow free speech but also manage risks like misinformation. Finding that balance is key to ensuring social media platforms contribute positively to public debate.”
Platforms like Meta and Google have already demonstrated a willingness to comply with government demands in Brazil, and this case could pressure others to do the same or face similar consequences.
Here today, Elon tomorrow: are advertisers abandoning X? — Read the article here.
Telegram is a widely used messaging app developed by Pavel Durov that has gained popularity for its strong emphasis on user privacy and encryption.
However, the platform has also come under intense scrutiny in recent years for facilitating organised crime, illegal activities, and other forms of misconduct.
Durov’s arrest in France has reinvigorated the debate about platform founders’ responsibility for criminal activity on their platforms.
The French government’s arrest of Pavel Durov regards an investigation into organised crime facilitated through Telegram.
The Russian-born billionaire was placed under “judicial supervision,” meaning he can’t leave France and must report to the authorities twice a week.
French prosecutors have tied Durov’s arrest to an ongoing investigation that involves twelve different offences, primarily linked to cybercrime and organised crime on the platform — such as child sexual abuse, drug sales, and fraud.
By detaining Durov, French authorities are testing the Digital Services Act (DSA) and exploring whether platform founders can be held directly accountable for criminal activities that occur on their platforms.
The DSA mandates more stringent moderation practices for digital platforms, requiring them to combat illegal content and misinformation actively.
Telegram is a widely used communication tool but has also been described as a “haven” for organised crime. The platform boasts around 950 million active users and allows group chats of up to 200,000 members, far surpassing the limits of rival platforms like WhatsApp.
However, as cybersecurity expert Zac Doffman accounts on Forbes, Telegram’s promise of privacy and minimal moderation has attracted not only regular users but also hackers, drug dealers, and child abusers.
Telegram operates similarly to a “popularised dark web,” where criminals are drawn to Telegram’s lack of moderation, allowing them to hide in plain sight while engaging in illicit activities.
Telegram’s website advertises, “You can have a Telegram account without a SIM card and log in using blockchain-powered anonymous numbers.”
However, critics argue that these tools, while beneficial for privacy, make Telegram an appealing platform for organised crime.
Telegram’s official communication is that “it is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”
⚖️ Telegram abides by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act — its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving.
✈️ Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe.
😵💫 It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner…
— Telegram Messenger (@telegram) August 25, 2024
In his first public comments following his detention, Durov defended Telegram’s moderation practices, stating that the app was far from an “anarchic paradise.”
Durov highlighted that French authorities have access to a “hotline” set up to report illegal content on Telegram and could have used this channel rather than resorting to legal action against him personally.
Durov pointed out that Telegram takes down millions of harmful posts and channels daily, although he acknowledged that the platform is imperfect.
Telegram’s unique privacy features have created both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, the app has empowered users around the world by offering secure communication options in countries with repressive regimes or poor internet freedom.
On the other hand, it has also facilitated criminal activities by offering individuals a space to operate under the radar.
Victoria Lee, founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, believes that while privacy-focused platforms like Telegram are necessary, they can also create significant safety concerns.
“Telegram’s focus on privacy is great, but it does create some problems when it comes to keeping people safe. Finding a middle ground means having ongoing conversations with tech companies, governments, and privacy advocates to address both privacy and safety,” she says.
The arrest of Pavel Durov has broader implications for platforms that prioritise privacy and decentralisation. If Durov is found liable for criminal activity on Telegram, it could set a precedent for how governments around the world approach similar platforms.
This would likely force privacy-focused platforms to implement stricter moderation policies, which could conflict with their commitment to user privacy.
Lee notes that this case highlights the difficulties of regulating decentralised platforms. While the focus on privacy is commendable, it creates a regulatory blind spot regarding criminal activities.
She adds: “If Pavel Durov were found liable in the Telegram case, it could set a global example. It would show how different countries might handle similar issues, affecting how tech companies operate around the world.”
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has long scrutinised Google’s overwhelming control in online advertising, accusing the search engine of engaging in anti-competitive practices.
This antitrust lawsuit, filed in early 2023, centres around the idea that Google’s dominance over digital ad technology has stifled competition, harmed consumers and left smaller companies struggling.
It raises questions about the role of massive tech corporations and how governments should apply antitrust laws to protect free-market competition.
The core of Google’s antitrust lawsuit is the firm’s 2008 acquisition of the advertising company DoubleClick for $3.1 billion.
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) complaint stresses that Google engaged in anti-competitive practices by acquiring rivals, manipulating digital ad markets to benefit its products, and blocking competitors from gaining market share.
The DOJ alleges that Google’s growing control over the ad ecosystem put other ad tech providers at a significant disadvantage. By leveraging its monopoly, Google gained control over both the supply and demand sides of the market.
However, Google says its acquisitions of DoubleClick and subsequent companies like AdMeld were approved by regulators at the time, making it unfair to challenge them years later.
The Google antitrust case highlights the challenges smaller businesses face in a market dominated by a few tech giants.
Simon Kvist, CEO of Adnami, an advertising platform, explains that Google’s stranglehold on the ad tech stack creates significant barriers for new players.
“Google’s solutions work seamlessly together, making them the easiest and most attractive option for many publishers,” Kvist points out.
He adds: “If Big Tech companies begin to limit publishers’ abilities to thrive or try and monopolise the advertising technology landscape, the consequences aren’t just fewer jobs and less competition; it also poses a danger to the core mechanics of our societies.”
Many publishers, particularly smaller ones, are caught in a difficult position. On one hand, choosing not to use Google’s ad tech could limit revenue potential, as its tools generate significant ad dollars.
Conversely, reliance on Google deepens the company’s market dominance, which critics argue harms innovation and competition in the long run.
In its official response, Google emphasises that the ad tech landscape is more vibrant and competitive than ever, with significant rivals such as Amazon building its ad business, Microsoft expanding its digital ad offerings, and Meta (Facebook) playing a big role in digital advertising.
Google argues that automating many aspects of the ad process and connecting publishers with the right advertisers has created a more open web, benefiting all stakeholders involved.
Google’s defence stresses that its innovations have levelled the playing field for smaller publishers and that dismantling its ad tech ecosystem would harm the very businesses the DOJ aims to protect.
If Google were to lose this antitrust lawsuit, as it did in Europe, the ramifications for the digital advertising landscape would be vast.
Victoria Lee, founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, says a potential outcome could include regulatory measures that give smaller companies and local publishers a fairer opportunity to compete.
“Smaller publishers and local media often struggle to compete with Google for ad revenue. From what I’ve seen, these smaller outlets can really feel the squeeze.”
She adds: “The Google antitrust case could really change the game for digital advertising. If Google loses, we might see new rules that give smaller companies a fairer shot.”
Should Google lose, the case could serve as a landmark ruling, setting a precedent for how antitrust laws are applied in the digital age.
A ruling against Google could encourage other governments to pursue similar actions against tech giants accused of monopolistic behaviour.
Simon Kvist points out that while the open web (as opposed to closed ecosystems like Google and Facebook) offers an alternative, fragmentation has hampered it.
“To compete, smaller publishers must focus on creating a cohesive ecosystem where advertisers feel comfortable and incentivised to invest,” he suggests.
He argues that the future of digital advertising lies in the industry’s ability to provide a unified, streamlined experience that rivals the efficiency of Google’s products.
The legal battles involving Google, Telegram, and other Big Tech companies highlight a global trend of governments striving to assert control over tech platforms.
These cases underscore the growing push for platform accountability, as governments aim to regulate multinational companies that often escape local jurisdiction due to their ubiquitous nature.
While governments argue these interventions are necessary to curb harmful content and monopolistic practices, tech companies defend their business models, citing innovation and free speech.
The common challenge is balancing user privacy, free speech, and regulation in a borderless digital world.
Lee explains: “Dealing with Big Tech and legal challenges is a real headache for governments. It’s tricky because tech moves so fast, and laws often can’t keep up. For example, the Telegram vs France case shows how hard it is for local laws to catch up with global platforms.”
In response, Tech companies are adjusting by adopting more transparent moderation policies but continue arguing that excessive regulation stifles growth and innovation.
Lee adds: “Balancing free speech with moderating harmful content is definitely a challenge. We need to protect people from harmful stuff without shutting down free expression.
“The solution might be clear and fair content moderation policies that let people speak their minds while also providing a way to handle harmful content. Being open about how content is managed can help find a good balance.”
Subscribe to our Editor's weekly newsletter
Share
