There is not much concern for national boundaries when it comes to social media platforms. Consider X as an illustration. Users of what was formerly known as Twitter are spread worldwide, boasting over 600 million active accounts across almost every nation. Each of these regions operates under its own legal framework.
However, National regulatory objectives frequently clash with those of major U.S.-based tech firms. Governments have attempted to impose oversight mechanisms to deal with issues like disinformation, online extremism and manipulation. These initiatives have faced opposition from the corporate sector and experienced political interference and legal challenges, invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.
A worldwide battle is unfolding regarding the governance of digital platforms. It is through these U.S. platforms that other countries’ regulations are being challenged.
Brazil vs. U.S. Tech
As a result of this phenomenon, new tensions emerged in February 2025 between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms. Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble initiated legal action in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, contesting his directives to shut down accounts on two platforms associated with disinformation campaigns in Brazil.
Elon Musk’s X previously attempted to appeal similar Brazilian rulings but was unsuccessful.
Together, these cases illustrate a growing trend among U.S. political and corporate actors to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pushing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections take precedence over sovereign policy globally.
Lawfare and Corporate Power
The dispute centers on Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after facing a preventive arrest order from De Moraes for allegedly coordinating disinformation and inciting violence. He continues his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests remain unanswered due to U.S. claims that the case pertains to free speech, not criminal offenses.
Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to seek to portray Brazil’s judicial measures as censorship rather than oversight. Additionally, it aims to depict the Brazilian court action as an overreach of territorial authority.
They assert that because the action’s target was in the U.S., they fall under the First Amendment’s free speech protections. They contend that the Brazilian nationality of the banned individual, who is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil, should be irrelevant.
Currently, U.S. courts are in consensus. In late February, a judge in Florida decided that Rumble and Trump Media are not required to follow the Brazilian order.
Big Tech pushback to regulation
As a result of the case, platform accountability has undergone an important shift. This depicts a move from corporate lobbying and political pressure to direct legal intervention in foreign jurisdictions. U.S. courts are increasingly being used to contest international rulings on platform accountability.
A revocable trust was established in December 2024 to hold Trump Media’s stake, which was 53% owned by the president. A de facto member of the Trump administration, Elon Musk is the owner of X and a fundamentalist who supports free speech.
Their rise to power has aligned with the First Amendment being used as a shield against international regulations on digital platforms. In the U.S., protections for free speech are applied unevenly, with authorities sometimes suppressing dissent while permitting hateful speech in different situations.
This power imbalance affects corporations, as decades of legal rulings have broadened protections for private interests. Court decisions established protections for corporate speech, a reasoning subsequently applied to digital platforms.
Free Speech vs. Platform Accountability
U.S. proponents of free speech in Big Tech and the government appear to be intensifying this trend further interpretation: American free speech principles can be used to counteract Technology in Africa egulations in other jurisdictions and contest foreign legal systems.
For example, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who was appointed by Trump, voiced concerns that the European Union’s Digital Services Act might jeopardize American free speech principles.
Different countries and regions have distinct interpretations of free speech. Sovereign nations adopting this approach value freedom of expression as a fundamental right. However, they also recognize that some restrictions are essential to safeguard democratic institutions, protect marginalized communities, ensure public health, and preserve the integrity of the informational ecosystem against harm.
