How US social media corporations use American law to query the worldwide technical regulation

Social media platforms are frequently not that national borders are disturbed.

For example, take X. users from what was once called Twitter 600 million lively accounts littered Almost every country. And each of those jurisdiction has its own laws.

But the interests of national regulatory efforts and people of predominantly US technology corporations often not align. While many governments have been searching for it Consider monitoring mechanisms These initiatives were to deal with problems resembling disinformation, online extremism and manipulation met with corporate resistancePresent political interference And legal challenges Call up freedom of speech as an indication against regulation.

What is brewing is a worldwide struggle for the governance of the digital platform. And on this fight, the US platforms are increasingly based on American laws to query the provisions of other nations. It is, we predict as an authority About digital law – an Executive Director of A Forum monitoring, how countries implement democratic principles – A type of digital imperialism.

A rumbling within the tech jungle

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025 when New tensions emerged Between the Brazil's judiciary and the social media platforms based within the USA.

Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble Submitted a lawsuit In the United States against the Brazilian Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes, he asked his instructions to issue accounts on the 2 platforms related to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.

The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musks X to withstand similar Brazilian decisions.

Together the cases illustrate a growing trend wherein US political and company actors The try and undermine the foreign supervisory authority by urging that domestic US law and company protection must have priority over sovereign guidelines worldwide.

From the company lobby work to legal guidance

In the core of the dispute is Allan dos SantosA right -wing Brazilian influencer and refugee of justice that had fled to the USA in 2021 allegedly Coordinate disinformation networks and encourage violence.

DOS Santos continued its online activities abroad. The delivery requests of Brazil have remained unanswered Because of claims of the US authorities that the case accommodates questions of freedom of speech and never about crimes.

Trump Media and Rumble's grievance tries to do two things. First, it tries to make the judicial complaints from Brazil more as a censorship than as a supervision. Secondly, it tries to present the Brazilian court's grievance as a territorial presentation.

Their position is that because the goal of the campaign within the USA, they’re subject to the protection of freedom of speech under the primary change. The incontrovertible fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hatred in Brazil mustn’t be subject.

Us dishes in the meanwhile agree. At the top of February, a judge based in Florida decided that Rumble and Trump Media Don't must keep With the Brazilian order.

Big Tech Pushback within the regulation

The case signals a very important shift in competition on the accountability of the platform – a change of company lobby work and political pressure to direct legal interventions directly in foreign jurisdiction. US courts at the moment are used to query decisions in overseas regarding the platform's accountability.

The result and the broader legal strategy behind the lawsuit could have far-reaching effects not just for Brazil, but on a rustic or a region. The European Union – Try to control online rooms.

The Trump administration rejects the resistance to digital regulation.

In Brazil, the efforts to control social media platforms had been significantly available for a very long time. Large technology corporations – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence Lobby against closer regulationOften guidelines as a threat to free expression.

In 2020, the Brazilian “fake news bill”, which had blamed the spread of disinformation, was answerable for holding platforms met with a powerful opposition of those corporations.

Google and Meta began top -class campaigns to oppose the legislative template and warned that it was “freedom of speech” and “small companies”. Google placed banner On his Brazilian homepage, users asked to reject laws while Meta was running Advertising In query, their effects on the digital economy.

These efforts along with lobbying and political resistance successfully made the regulatory framework to delay and weaken.

Mix of corporations and political power

The difference is that the challenges blur the limit between corporations and political.

Trump Media was 53% owned by the US President before he went out moved his share in a revocable trust In December 2024. Elon Musk, the fundamentalist owner of X, is a Actually a member of the Trump administration.

Their rise to power fell along with the primary change, which was exposed to foreign regulations on digital platforms as an indication.

The protection of freedom of speech within the USA was used unevenly in order that the authorities can suppress Dissens in some cases while Hasser -filled speech in others.

This imbalance extends to the corporate's power, with a long time of legal precedent for personal interests. The case law cemented corporate speech Protectiona logic later prolonged to digital platforms.

The US freedom of speech in Big Tech and the US government apparently escalated this trend towards an excellent more extreme interpretation: that American freedom of speaking may be used to withstand the regulation of other jurisdiction and to query foreign legal framework.

For example in response to the European Union Digital Services ActChairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, a Trump representative, expressed concerns that the law said Could threaten American principles of freedom of speech.

Such an argument might have been okay if the identical interpretation of freedom of speech – and its appropriate protection – was generally accepted. But they aren’t.

The concept of freedom of speech varies significantly within the nations and regions.

Countries resembling Brazil, Germany, France and others assume what legal experts known as Proportionality -based approach to freedom of speechin accordance with other fundamental rights resembling human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.

Sovereign countries that use this approach recognize freedom of expression as a basic and preferred right. However, in addition they recognize that certain restrictions are needed to guard democratic institutions, marginalized communities, public health and the knowledge ecosystem.

While the United States imposed some limits for the speech – resembling Defamation laws and protection before Incitement for immediately impending lawless motion – The first change is mostly much more expansive than in other democracies.

The way forward for digital government

The legal dispute over the platform regulation is just not limited to the present struggle between US platforms and Brazil. The EU's digital service law and the Online security law In the United Kingdom, there are other examples of governments that try to determine control over platforms that work inside their borders.

In the lawsuit of Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court, she signals a critical moment in global geopolitics.

US tech giants like meta are Bend to the liberty of speech Come from the Trump administration. Muschus, the owner of X, has supported right -wing extremists in overseas.

And this overlap within the political priorities of social media platforms and the political interests of the US administration opens up a brand new era within the deregulation debate, wherein the US talk freedom try to determine absolutely legal precedents that would query the longer term of regulatory efforts by other nations.

Since the federal states proceed to develop regulatory framework for digital governance in Brazil And In the EU – The legal, economic and political strategy platforms which can be used to challenge supervisory mechanisms will play an important role in determining future balance between corporate influence and the rule of law.