Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Brazil's Congress proposed the Fake News Bill. Experts highlighted the Fake News Bill's vague definitions, risking misinterpretations. The study analyzes plenary discussions using Critical Discourse Analysis. Far-right deputies align with experts, contradicting their usual misinformation role.

Long abstract:

The term "infodemic," coined by the WHO in 2020 in response to coronavirus misinformation, has garnered increased research attention since the 2016 election of Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK. In Brazil, the election of Bolsonaro in 2018 marked a significant point for misinformation proliferation. Globally, efforts have been made to regulate digital platforms to mitigate this problem. Following this tendency, the Brazilian Congress proposed and discussed Bill 2630/2020, known in popular vocabulary as the Fake News Bill. Beyond addressing various aspects of the digital realm, this bill aims to establish mechanisms for content verification and accountability of digital platforms and users for the harm caused by misinformation dissemination. Criticized for lacking conceptual definitions, experts argue it may lead to misinterpretations. This research evaluates diverse political perspectives within the Brazilian Congress on Bill 2630/2020. Utilizing qualitative methods, the analysis focuses on discourses during plenary discussions. Out of 145 deputies discussing the bill, 34 were selected for in-depth analysis, contributing at least three discourses each and accounting for 54.08% of total discourses. The analytical framework applied in this study is Critical Discourse Analysis, drawing on the works of Fairclough (2001) and Van Dijk (2006, 2009). Results reveal a surprising alignment of far-right deputies with experts, contradicting their usual role in the spread of misinformation. However, it was observed that this alignment was not without its complexities, as some of the reasons behind it were rooted in conspiratorial theories, particularly related to notions of communism and censorship.