Threats to Democracy in Brazil: The Rise of Technofeudalism and the Assault on Democratic Institutions

David Nemer is the author of Technology of the Oppressed: Inequity and the Digital Mundane in Favelas of Brazil.

We are living in a time when threats to democracy emerge from multiple fronts. Some of these threats are traditional—such as corruption and political violence—but others are novel and particularly insidious, leveraging digital technologies to undermine democratic institutions in unprecedented ways. One such force is what Cédric Durand coined as technofeudalism, a new order in which digital monopolies accumulate power, wealth, and control over political discourse, exacerbating social inequalities and manipulating public perception to their advantage.

The Age of Technofeudalism

At the turn of the 21st century, the rise of information technology brought great hope for decentralization, innovation, and democratization. The internet was hailed as a tool that would empower individuals, allowing them to access knowledge, connect across borders, and engage in civic participation. However, instead of delivering on these promises, the so-called “digital revolution” has created a landscape dominated by corporate monopolies, where a handful of platforms control the vast majority of information, economic transactions, and even social interactions.

This is the essence of technofeudalism: an economic system where control over data and digital infrastructure is concentrated in the hands of a few corporate actors—Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft—who act as modern-day feudal lords. Unlike traditional market capitalism, where businesses compete for customers, these platforms do not simply participate in the economy; they own it. Users are not merely consumers but digital subjects who must pay rent—either through direct fees or by extracting their personal data—to access basic services.

In Brazil, this dynamic is particularly dangerous. As a country that has long struggled with economic inequality and institutional fragility, the rise of technofeudalism presents a severe challenge to sovereignty, democracy, and social justice. With digital platforms acting as arbiters of truth, political engagement, and economic opportunity, we must ask ourselves: Who controls Brazil’s democracy in the digital age? This question is motivated by five major threats.

Five Major Threats of Technofeudalism in Brazil

1. Digital Colonization: Brazil is increasingly dependent on foreign tech companies that extract vast amounts of data without accountability. These companies amass wealth by harvesting and monetizing the personal information of Brazilian citizens, effectively colonizing the digital space and shaping the nation’s economic and political future from abroad.
2. Erosion of Formal Labor: The gig economy, dominated by platforms like Uber and iFood, has replaced stable jobs with precarious, low-paid work without social protections. This shift has dismantled labor rights, leaving millions of Brazilian workers vulnerable and without bargaining power.
3. Manipulation of Information: Coordinated disinformation campaigns and algorithmic bias have undermined public trust in democratic institutions. Right-wing groups, often backed by corporate and foreign interests, weaponize social media to attack the judiciary, Congress, and civil society. The manipulation of online discourse enables authoritarian leaders to bypass traditional checks and balances, fostering an environment of distrust and polarization.
4. Extreme Inequality: The accumulation of wealth and power by a handful of digital corporations exacerbates economic disparity. While corporate leaders amass fortunes, Brazilian citizens face increasing economic hardship. This digital feudal order transforms workers into serfs bound to the platforms that dictate their economic survival.
5. Loss of Economic and Political Sovereignty: As Brazil increasingly relies on foreign digital infrastructure—cloud services, online payments, digital advertising—the government loses control over national interests. Policies and regulations enacted by Brazil’s democratic institutions are frequently ignored or resisted by these tech giants, weakening the country’s ability to govern itself effectively.

Neoliberalism and the Foundations of Technofeudalism

These threats did not emerge in a vacuum. The roots of technofeudalism lie in the neoliberal economic policies that have dominated global governance for decades. In her book In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, Wendy Brown argues that neoliberalism’s attack on the state, its devaluation of social welfare, and its glorification of market freedom have paved the way for authoritarian politics. By eroding the power of democratic institutions and celebrating corporate dominance, neoliberalism has effectively set the stage for the technofeudal order we see today.

Neoliberalism was not just an economic project—it was an ideological one. It dismantled collective protections, weakened labor rights, and framed democracy itself as an obstacle to free markets. As Brown notes, neoliberalism flirted with authoritarianism from the beginning, undermining democratic values in the name of economic efficiency. What we see now—the rise of digital monopolies, extreme inequality, and mass disinformation—is a direct consequence of that ideological shift.

This is why the current far-right resurgence in Brazil is not just a political issue but an economic and structural one. Digital platforms, initially built under neoliberal ideals of free enterprise, have become vehicles for the radicalization of political discourse, fueling conspiracies, eroding trust in institutions, and empowering authoritarian leaders who use digital tools to suppress dissent.

Elon Musk vs. the Brazilian Supreme Court: A Case Study in Technofeudal Power

A recent and clear example of technofeudalism’s grip on Brazil is the conflict between Elon Musk and Brazil’s Supreme Court. Under the guise of “free speech,” Musk has openly challenged Brazilian judicial authority, refusing to comply with orders from Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes regarding the removal of extremist content on X (formerly Twitter).

Musk’s refusal to follow Brazilian law is emblematic of how tech billionaires view themselves as above national governments. Their platforms shape public discourse, control access to information, and, in cases like this, attempt to override judicial rulings. This is nothing less than an assault on Brazilian sovereignty—a foreign billionaire attempting to dictate the limits of free speech and accountability within Brazil’s democratic framework.

The Marco Civil da Internet and the Fight for Digital Democracy

Fortunately, Brazil has not been entirely passive in the face of digital authoritarianism. The Marco Civil da Internet, Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, passed in 2014, was one of the world’s first legislative frameworks to protect digital rights, ensure net neutrality, and hold platforms accountable. However, its enforcement—particularly Article 19, which holds platforms responsible for illegal content—has been fiercely contested by tech companies that claim such regulations infringe on corporate free speech.

This legal battle underscores a critical point: Democracy cannot function if digital platforms operate outside the rule of law. If companies like X, Meta, and Google can ignore judicial rulings and manipulate political discourse, then the very foundation of democracy—accountability, transparency, and equal representation—is at risk.

The Problem of Free Speech

The problem we face today is that Silicon Valley platforms are active agents in reshaping fundamental democratic concepts, including the very notion of freedom and free speech. These companies co-opt the language of rights and liberties to further their own techno-colonial and feudalistic agendas, using the guise of free speech as a justification for their expansive reach into global markets.

Under the pretense of promoting global free speech, Big Tech companies are, in reality, expanding their business models into the most remote and politically vulnerable corners of the world. The goal is not the enhancement of democratic discourse but the maximization of profit, often through the amplification of extremist and inflammatory speech. In the so-called attention economy, where engagement translates directly into revenue, extremist content—because of its capacity to provoke outrage, fear, and tribalism—becomes one of the most lucrative forms of digital expression. By enabling and even privileging such content, these companies not only distort democratic deliberation but also fuel the kind of radicalization that undermines democratic institutions and social cohesion.

This is particularly evident in countries like Brazil, where Silicon Valley corporations have sought to redefine the concept of free speech in ways that directly threaten democratic stability. By promoting an absolutist and highly selective interpretation of free speech—one that conveniently aligns with their business interests—these platforms facilitate the spread of extremist rhetoric that incites violence, destabilizes governance, and erodes public trust in democratic institutions. The terrorist attacks on January 8, 2023, in Brasília, which mimicked the January 6, 2021, insurrection in the United States, are direct manifestations of this phenomenon. These attacks were not spontaneous uprisings; they were the culmination of months, if not years, of algorithmically amplified disinformation and incitement, much of which was propagated on platforms that claim to champion free expression.

The imposition of this corporate-defined free speech paradigm is a form of epistemic violence—it forcibly reshapes national and cultural understandings of democracy, dissent, and public discourse. In societies where economic inequality and political precarity are already severe, this violence is not merely abstract; it has deadly consequences. Brazil has witnessed multiple disinformation-driven killings, including the lynching of innocent people falsely accused of crimes through viral misinformation. And yet, the corporations enabling these tragedies remain shielded from liability, invoking the rhetoric of free speech to absolve themselves of responsibility.

The irony is that this imagined version of free speech—one in which expression is entirely unregulated and without consequence—does not exist even in the US, the very country whose First Amendment these tech companies claim to model their approach after. US constitutional law has long recognized limits on speech, including prohibitions on obscenity, incitement to violence, and defamation. However, because these Silicon Valley firms have grown so large and influential, they increasingly position themselves as supra-governmental entities—operating as parallel states that defy national regulations, evade legal accountability, and impose their own ideological frameworks upon sovereign nations.

This unchecked corporate power represents a profound democratic crisis. By dictating the terms of political discourse and determining which voices are amplified or silenced, tech monopolies exert influence that rivals, and at times surpasses, that of elected governments. They claim to be neutral actors, but their economic incentives and ideological commitments shape the digital public sphere in ways that serve their interests at the expense of democratic stability, social justice, and human rights. If left unchallenged, this monopolization of discourse will continue to erode democratic institutions worldwide, replacing genuinely participatory politics with an algorithmically mediated illusion of free expression—one that prioritizes corporate profit over public good and, in doing so, deepens the inequalities and injustices of the digital age.

What Must Be Done?

To counter the threats of technofeudalism and defend Brazil’s democracy, several urgent measures must be taken:

1. Strengthening Digital Regulations: Brazil must reinforce platform accountability laws, ensuring that digital corporations respect national regulations and judicial decisions.
2. Public Control Over Digital Infrastructure: The government should invest in national cloud services, independent digital platforms, and local AI development to reduce reliance on foreign monopolies.
3. Combating Disinformation: Greater transparency in algorithmic decision-making and stricter penalties for fake news campaigns are essential to protect electoral integrity and public trust in democracy.
4. Protecting Digital Labor Rights: The Brazilian labor system must adapt to guarantee protections for gig economy workers, ensuring fair wages, benefits, and collective bargaining rights.
5. Advancing Media Literacy: Digital literacy programs should be expanded nationwide, equipping citizens with the tools to critically assess online information and resist manipulation.

Conclusion: The Fight for a Digital Democracy

Brazil stands at a crossroads. If we allow technofeudal lords to dictate the rules of governance, our democracy will erode into a system where corporate interests override national sovereignty, economic justice, and political accountability. But if we act decisively—enforcing regulations, empowering workers, and reclaiming control over digital infrastructure—we can chart a new course toward a truly democratic digital future.

The battle for democracy is not just fought in Congress or at the ballot box—it is waged online, in the courts, and in the streets. In this battle, we must stand together, resist digital colonization, and ensure that technology serves democracy, not the other way around.