Alexandre de Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, delivered a pointed critique of large technology companies—commonly referred to as “big techs”—during an *aula magna* (inaugural lecture) at the University of São Paulo (USP) Faculty of Law on February 24, 2025. His statement, “For big techs, democracy is a business,” defines his argument that these corporations treat democratic processes as a commodity to be exploited for profit and influence, rather than a principle to be upheld.
Core Argument: Democracy as a Commodity
Moraes asserted that big tech companies view democracy not as a foundational value but as a lucrative opportunity. He argued that these firms, driven by economic interests, commodify political engagement in the same way they sell products like cars. In his words, “Democracy is a business [for the big techs]. Just as we sell cars, let’s sell candidates.” He suggested that this approach yields immense profits by enabling these companies to shape political outcomes, influence legislation, and ultimately “control the country” through their dominance over digital platforms. This perspective frames big techs as powerful actors who prioritize financial gain and global influence over national sovereignty and democratic integrity.
Critique of Big Tech Neutrality
A recurring theme in Moraes’ lecture was his rejection of the idea that big techs are neutral platforms. He stated, “Big techs are not sent from God; they are not neutral. They are economic groups that want to dominate the global economy and politics, ignoring borders, national sovereignties, and laws.”
This challenges the narrative often presented by companies like Google, Meta, and X, which claim to be mere facilitators of user-generated content. Moraes argued that their algorithms are designed to amplify divisive or extreme content—such as hate speech or misinformation—because it drives engagement and, consequently, revenue. He illustrated this with an example: a pro-democracy message might reach five people, while an inflammatory one reaches 100,000, suggesting intentional bias rather than random outcomes.
Misuse of Social Media
Moraes highlighted what he calls the “instrumentalization of social media” by big techs, alongside groups he described as “economically driven and ideologically fascist, extreme-right.” He contended that these entities exploit social platforms to “erode democracy from within” through a strategy he has academically termed “digital populism.” This involves leveraging algorithms for “mass indoctrination” or “brainwashing,” amplifying populist and extremist narratives to undermine democratic institutions like the free press, fair elections, and an independent judiciary. He pointed to events like the January 8, 2023, attacks in Brazil—linked to disinformation campaigns—as evidence of this threat
Context and Broader Implications
Moraes’ remarks come amid his ongoing tensions with big tech firms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. As a key figure in Brazil’s efforts to regulate online content, Moraes has ordered the suspension of platforms like X, Telegram, and Rumble for failing to comply with Brazilian laws, such as appointing local legal representatives or removing illegal content. His exit from X in February 2025, shortly before the lecture, and a subsequent lawsuit filed against him in the U.S. by Trump associates and Rumble, underscore the international stakes of this debate. His critique aligns with his advocacy for regulating social media, a stance he has defended in judicial rulings and his academic work, including his 2024 USP thesis on digital populism.
Profit Motive Evidence
Moraes’ claim that big techs prioritize profit over principle is supported by their business models, which rely heavily on advertising revenue tied to user engagement. Studies have shown that polarizing content often garners more attention, aligning with his algorithmic critique.
Democratic Erosion
His focus on disinformation’s role in destabilizing elections and institutions resonates with global concerns, seen in Brazil’s 2022 election aftermath and the U.S. Capitol riot in 2021.
Sovereignty Concerns
By framing big techs as dismissive of national laws, he taps into a widely debated issue about the extraterritorial power of tech giants.
Critiques and Counterpoints
Overgeneralization
Moraes’ broad labeling of big techs as aligned with “fascist” or “extreme-right” groups lacks specificity. While some platforms have hosted such content, others have actively moderated it, suggesting varied corporate approaches.
Censorship Debate
Critics, including Musk, argue that Moraes’ regulatory push infringes on free speech. His opponents might contend that treating democracy as a “business” also applies to governments or regulators who wield power over expression for political ends.
Evidence Gaps
While he asserts algorithmic bias, he provided no concrete data during the lecture (e.g., studies or platform metrics), relying instead on anecdotal framing, which weakens the empirical rigor of his critique.
Rhetorical Style and Audience
Delivered to law students—many chanting “no amnesty” in reference to the January 8 events—Moraes’ speech blended academic analysis with populist rhetoric. His humor, like joking about leaving X (“I can’t even quit X without being snitched on”), and vivid metaphors (e.g., “selling candidates like cars”) made complex ideas accessible, while reinforcing his authority as both a justice and professor. This dual role, however, invites scrutiny: his judicial actions shape the very issues he critiques, raising questions about impartiality.
Moraes’ statement, “For big techs, democracy is a business,” is a provocative distillation of his view that these companies exploit democratic systems for profit, using their technological dominance to influence politics and erode sovereignty. While grounded in real concerns about disinformation and power imbalances, his argument risks oversimplification and invites debate over regulation versus freedom. In Brazil’s polarized context, his words fuel an ongoing clash between judicial authority and tech influence, with global reverberations as nations grapple with the digital age’s impact on democracy. Moraes is shows force but little proof, He only feeds his own ego. Free speech is not in his power agenda.
Laiz Rodrigues
Hotspotorlando news