"Brazil prohibits X and highlights digital censorship in global authoritarian governments."

The recent ban of the social network X in Brazil has highlighted a broader trend in the restrictive use of digital platforms in various countries around the world. Since last Saturday, Brazil has joined a list of nations that have decided to block access to this platform, accusing it of being a vehicle for the spread of fake news and misinformation. However, Brazil is not an isolated case; several authoritarian regimes and governments in crisis have chosen to restrict access to X, showing a clear concern about the power these platforms have to mobilize and organize protests. The history of X, previously known as Twitter, is marked by its ability to be an effective medium for political protest. In contexts like the Arab Spring in 2011, Egypt used this social network to disseminate messages of resistance and organize mass demonstrations. However, this same effectiveness has led governments to consider the platform a threat, especially those that fear losing control over the public narrative. One of the most notable examples is China, which banned Twitter in June 2009, just before the 20th anniversary of the crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Since then, Chinese citizens have found local alternatives like Weibo and WeChat, but the ban remains a reminder of how governments can restrict access to information to maintain their power. In this context, social movements in China have continued, finding ways to communicate despite censorship. In Central Asia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have followed similar patterns. Turkmenistan, a country where internet access is strictly controlled by the state, banned Twitter in the early 2010s. Despite the regime's well-known repression, protest movements have found their way out through hidden channels, reflecting the human need to express oneself despite the risks. The situation is even more extreme in North Korea, where access to the internet is practically restricted to a small group of government officials. Since 2016, the ban on platforms like Twitter and Facebook has been part of a broader effort by the regime to control information and eliminate any dissenting voices. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar has been another scene of restriction. Since the military coup in February 2021, access to X has been blocked as part of an effort by the regime to silence opposition voices that have used the platform to mobilize protests and share information about human rights abuses. Russia, for its part, launched a frontal attack against Twitter in 2021, initially slowing its access and then banning it in March 2022, coinciding with the start of the invasion of Ukraine. Despite this ban, many Russian citizens continue to use the platform through VPN services, defying the restrictions imposed by the Kremlin. This phenomenon highlights the desire of many to access uncensored information, even when facing potential repercussions. Pakistan has also joined the restrictions on X, blocking the platform in response to allegations of electoral fraud that spread on it. This action by the government, backed by the military, reflects a trend in which governments in crisis opt for censorship as a means of social control. Like in Brazil, the ban has been justified for national security reasons, an argument frequently used in contexts of repression. The case of Venezuela is another clear example of how there is an effort to control information. President Nicolás Maduro, after being re-elected amid allegations of fraud, ordered the suspension of X during a period of massive protests. Although the ban was established for ten days, it has been extended, highlighting the government’s fear of the organization of opponents through digital platforms. In Brazil, the recent blocking of X has generated a shift in the social media landscape, giving a boost to competitors like Bluesky, which have seen a significant increase in activity. This phenomenon suggests that restrictions may lead users to seek alternatives, which could have a lasting impact on how information is communicated in the country. As control over digital platforms intensifies in different parts of the world, a fundamental question arises: what are the implications for freedom of expression and access to information? The answer is complex and varies depending on the context, but it is undeniable that restrictions on social networks like X reflect governments' fears of organized citizen movements and the quest for greater transparency and social justice. The struggle for freedom of expression continues, and the future of digital communication will be a key battleground in this fight.