CDH - A influência das fake news na sociedade - 10/02/2020

Summary — “CDH - A influência das fake news na sociedade” (10/02/2020)

The Federal Senate’s Human Rights Commission held a public hearing to discuss how fake news and harmful media content affect society, with emphasis on human rights violations and impacts on children and adolescents. The event also presented the research-based app “I Monitor”, designed to let citizens report inappropriate or harmful content and help generate evidence for academia and regulators.

1) App “I Monitor”: citizen reporting + evidence for public policy

• The app was developed from a post-doctoral project at Fiocruz (National School of Public Health / supervisory research leadership).
• Its goal is to provide society with a simple, practical channel to report harmful content, including:
  • fake news
  • human rights violations
  • violence, sex/nudity, drugs, and other inappropriate content
• Besides notifications, the app is framed as a communication bridge among:
  • citizens
  • academia/research
  • regulatory/public bodies
• It is designed to use categories aligned with Brazil’s age-rating framework, and is expected to generate reports (e.g., semiannual/annual, as outlined in the plan) to inform improvements in monitoring and public policies.
• A key operational point raised: complaints should be substantiated. Citizens should describe what happened and ideally provide media evidence (e.g., photos/videos), because authorities can only take administrative steps if the details allow evaluation.

2) Why fake news and harmful media are a human-rights and public-health issue

Speakers argued that media influence is not neutral:

• Fiocruz researchers noted that violence and discrimination can spread through media narratives and affect public health and social behavior.
• An example was given of panic/discrimination caused by misinformation: a story circulated claiming Fiocruz was “prohibited from speaking” about a health/water issue, which led to confusion and avoidance rather than addressing the real problem.
• The debate emphasized that the aim is not “censorship”, but rather responsibility, monitoring, and mechanisms to curb harm without suppressing free expression.

3) Focus on children/adolescents: advertising, “police shows,” and media effects

• The Alana Institute argued that children are heavily exposed to television and digital platforms and often cannot distinguish:
  • advertising from programming
  • sponsored influencer content from organic content
• It highlighted confusion about how advertising is presented across media, consistent with child-protection psychology concerns.
• Several harmful programming examples were discussed, especially police-themed shows, criticized for normalizing human-rights violations and undermining due process.

4) “No censorship” vs “minimum control”: a recurring principle

Participants addressed fears that regulation could suppress freedom of speech:

• Researchers and institutional speakers stated that age-rating systems and complaint mechanisms are informative/pedagogical, not punitive censorship tools.
• The app was positioned as citizen empowerment and evidence collection, while age-rating oversight remains within the Ministry of Justice’s mechanisms.

5) Age-rating policy: what it is, how it is supposed to work, and what still fails

Representatives from the Ministry of Justice (indicative classification policy) explained:

• Age ratings are grounded in constitutional and legal provisions and must balance:
  • freedom of expression
  • protection of children and adolescents
• The system is described as:
  • informative (not content prohibition)
  • using standardized age symbols and content descriptors (why a work is rated for a given age)
• The hearing also noted ongoing challenges:
  • enforcement and compliance (especially schedule/time suitability)
  • gaps in coverage and how some content is treated in practice
• They clarified that for open TV, monitoring involves reviewing major channels and reopening review windows when complaints are received.

6) Media human-rights violations beyond age rating (police-show ethics and due process)

Intervozes (Brazilian Collective for Social Communication) presented a methodology/study to identify recurring human-rights violations in media coverage, moving beyond moral debate toward rights protection. Examples included:

• violating the presumption of innocence (presenting suspects as guilty without evidence/conviction)
• incitement to crime and violence
• disobeying laws/judicial decisions (when media personalities encourage unlawful or violent acts)
• The organization stressed that responsibility should be borne institutionally by concessionaires/companies, not only by individual presenters.

7) App limitations and next steps (especially regarding social media)

• A major issue raised: the speakers noted the lack of a clear regulatory body for social media, making it difficult to route complaints into enforcement processes.
• Thus, the app’s first phase is mainly focused on:
  • collecting data
  • building a database
  • issuing periodic reports
  • producing feedback to society and partners
• A “second version” of the app was mentioned as ready, pending user feedback.
• Proposals included engaging content platforms and exploring “trusted reviewer” certification models to speed up analysis.

---

Presenters / contributors (as listed in the subtitles)

Panel 1 / Launch and discussion of “I Monitor”

• Cláudia Pereira Galhardi (Fiocruz researcher; author of the app “I Monitor”)
• Lívia Cattaruzzi (Alana Institute representative)
• Hermano Albuquerque de Castro (Director, Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Fiocruz)
• Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo (Fiocruz researcher; scientific coordinator and supervisor of the research project)

Panel 2 / Age rating, regulation, and media human-rights analysis

• Rodrigo Moutinho (Fiocruz; ICICT/Institute of Scientific and Technological Communication and Information in Health)
• Marina Pita (Intervozes representative)
• Patrícia Graça (Ministry of Justice; indicative classification policy coordinator)
• Osório Eduardo de Araújo Nepomuceno (Ministry of Justice; head of the indicative classification division)
• Eduardo de Araújo Júnior (Ministry of Justice; in the subtitles appears as head/division role in indicative classification)

Additional mentions (named, not clearly identified as full speakers in subtitles)

• Senator Paulo Paim (commission lead who invited/framed the debate)
• Senator Paula Albino (listed as part of the panel/table in the subtitles)