Lessons from the Brazilian Elections

A new analysis by Robert Gorwa (WZB), Clara Iglesias Keller (WZB/Weizenbaum Institute) and João C. Magalhães (University of Manchester) based on the 2026 Brazilian presidential elections, examines a concerning trend in digital governance: the transition from unintentional forms of algorithmic bias to conscious, explicit forms of "platform illiberalism." The researchers argue that if digital infrastructures are now strategic weapons wielded by their politically motivated owners, the global approach to tech regulation and political communication must be fundamentally reimagined from a previous paradigm that still primarily assumed that they were if not neutral, at least somewhat democratic ‘public squares’.

In the past, it was often argued that right-wing content succeeded simply because its emotional language happened to satisfy algorithms designed for high engagement (such as those on Facebook or YouTube). Now, however, a new strategy is emerging. Big Tech companies are increasingly using their infrastructures in a targeted manner to promote illiberal, right-wing conservative movements and weaken their political opponents.

A concrete example can be found in Brazil, as Robert Gorwa (WZB), Clara Iglesias Keller (Weizenbaum Institut) and João C. Magalhães (University of Manchester) argue in a recent contribution for the Tech Policy Press outlet. In the 2026 federal elections in Brazil, Meta was suspected of hindering the campaign of progressive President Lula da Silva through various technical and visibility restrictions. Although Meta dismissed these incidents as mere technical errors, and denies that it put various design measures in place to favour the right-wing populist challenger, Flávio Bolsonaro, the case illustrates an emerging strategic symbiosis: platforms supporting candidates who promise a deregulation of the tech industry, while remaining skeptical of governments that demand digital sovereignty and stricter controls.

This trend is being driven largely by figures such as Elon Musk in his leadership of X, where the platform was actively used to boost specific political actors globally and remove critics and journalists. Meta appears to be following this path to some extent by reducing fact-checking and loosening moderation rules in favor of conservative narratives. In "The Great Sysop: Elon Musk, X, and the emergence of platform illiberalism", a contribution for the Journal "New Media & Society" the authors has shown Twitter’s mutation into X under Elon Musk, analyzing its shift from a mainstream platform to a far-right-aligned space. You can find the article here. 

Three central lessons

The authors derive three central lessons from these developments. First, the alleged ideological neutrality of Big Tech is clearly no longer the case. Second, this perceived bias of US-dominated platforms can paradoxically act as a factor for local political mobilization: in Brazil, a kind of "digital army" was organized by the Lula campaign that attempted to overcome apparent forms of algorithmic suppression. Third, the urgent need for democratic transparency regarding social media and other politically important digital platforms becomes clear. As long as the functioning of algorithms remains a "black box," platform operators can influence elections without being definitively shown to have done so – massively underminomg trust in the democratic process.

In summary, the text warns against continuing to view digital infrastructures as neutral spaces. Major technology firms have explicitly aligned themselves with illiberal and even far-right movements, and we need to start critically assessing their global political activities with that in mind.

9/11/26, kes