Good afternoon. I'll be opening this workshop in Portuguese. Thank you to our interpreters for making this possible. It is both an honor and a pleasure to open this afternoon's session with what we in Brazil call a "mística", a moment rich in cultural meaning. As we've seen throughout the various processes discussed, this "mística" underscores not only the vital role of culture in times of revolution, but also the power of communication — particularly through radio, a medium that remains deeply influential across Brazil and Latin America.
First of all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to East China Normal University for the invitation, and to the entire organizing team for their dedicated efforts. It is truly valuable that they have put together such a high-quality forum, providing us with the opportunity to engage in enriching discussions. We ought to place communication at the heart of our dialogs on political processes. After all, we are addressing issues of political and ideological domination, which forms the very foundation for building and sustaining a political and ideological culture rooted in the working class.
It is both a privilege and a profound responsibility to share with you some of the insights, experiences, and reflections from Brazil—and particularly from Brasil de Fato—regarding our efforts in the field of communication. We reflect within a broader vision: to confront the challenges posed by social media and examine the impact of both traditional and digital media frameworks on Brazilian politics.
I can affirm that reflecting on and practicing journalism within the current context of hybrid warfare presents a significant challenge. Many regions around the world are subject to hybrid warfare of varying intensities, often correlated with the level of threat these regions are perceived to pose. We are witnessing political instability, threats to democracy, erosion of democratic institutions, and public opinion inflamed by hatred, violence, and a widespread rejection of politics. This negative climate tends to condemn all political conduct as culpable. In light of this, it is essential that we find ways to overcome the rejection of politics, restore a sense of political agency to the people, and empower them to make a difference.
Communication has always sought to secure narrative hegemony using various tools. However, with the emergence of social networks and modern communication techniques, these means have evolved in both form and scale, gaining the power to even manipulate public sentiment. My aim today is to shed light on how these means operate within the specific context of Brazil. To provide a clearer understanding, I would like to outline the situation that unfolded in Brazil.
It was this event that paved the way for the election of former President Bolsonaro. It began in 2013, when a small group of activists demonstrating for free public transport took to the streets of São Paulo, the nation's economic hub, to protest against rising transit fares.
The police crackdown that followed sparked outrage, prompting millions across Brazil to join demonstrations in cities nationwide. Seizing the opportunity, right-wing groups infiltrated the protests, muddying the waters and harnessing the momentum to serve their own agenda. What started as a localized movement rapidly expanded into a nationwide wave of unrest. The right wing adopted symbolic gestures and co-opted methodologies associated with the left.
A new political landscape was emerging, exposing the crisis of traditional governing approaches long upheld by the old establishment. I would like to highlight two key elements that characterized these demonstrations: First, a widespread rejection of the Brazilian left wing and its traditional agenda. The Workers' Party government had implemented affirmative action policies, such as the Family Support Program, which provided cash benefits to low-income families, and the introduction of racial quotas in university admissions. These policies were critical, even serving as necessary corrections to historical inequities, yet they faced intense backlash. The second element was resistance to gender and race-related agendas, driven largely by ethical and religious convictions.
It was the convergence of these two elements that helped unite right-wing groups. The growing influence of conservatives and economic liberals fueled the rise of far-right rhetoric. As this ideology gained traction, even the Workers' Party, the largest left-wing party in Brazil and across Latin America, came under intensified attack. At the same time, segments of the traditional right-wing apparatus also found themselves significantly weakened. The entire political chessboard was shifting, and the pieces began to move accordingly.
In 2014, Dilma Rousseff was re-elected for a second term— an electoral process that fraught with peril and instability. Opinion polls illustrate showed that the support for her reached an all-time high of 79% in March 2013, only to plummet to 31% following the mass demonstrations in June of that year. By August 2015, almost a year after her re-election, her support had collapsed to just 8%. The crisis continued to escalate, culminating in a coup in 2016. This was not solely a political crisis; it was also profoundly economic, unfolding at a time when Dilma was suspended from office.
During the subsequent two years, public policies were drastically dismantled. The extensive network of organizations, institutions, and systems built by the Workers' Party over recent years collapsed, and former President Lula became the target of relentless political persecution. Who, then, should be held accountable for Lula's imprisonment and the coup? The answer is the judiciary, parliament, and the corporate press. Each of them contributed momentum and played a critical role in these events.
In 2018, Mr Lula was arrested as part of the so-called "Operation Car Wash." This represents a textbook case of lawfare, the strategic use of legal systems to eliminate political opponents of the ruling class. The case was riddled with legal absurdities that drew attention from around the world.
No one exemplifies this judicial manipulation more vividly than Judge Sergio Moro. Remember that name. It was Moro who presided over the blatantly one-sided trial of Lula, all under the guise of an anti-corruption campaign.
His ties to the U.S. Department of State and the FBI are close. Judge Moro, along with other members of the Brazilian Federal Police and judiciary, participated in seminars co-organized with U.S. agencies, such as the "The Bridges Project," which aimed to strengthen bilateral law enforcement cooperation and provide counter-terrorism trainings. In ordering Lula's arrest, Moro embraced classic U.S. tactics: mass judicial violations and the arbitrary use of law to achieve the widespread conviction of government officials and a severe distortion of the legal system.
Yet this kind of interference is hardly new. Throughout Latin American history, the U.S. government has repeatedly supported authoritarian regimes.
Brazil has been in a state of turmoil ever since Lula was imprisoned. It was this climate of instability that paved the way for Bolsonaro's presidential victory in 2018, under the slogan "Brazil above everything, God above everyone." This phrase came to symbolize a far-right vision of Brazil, and a far-right interpretation of God. Under this administration, opposition parties, free speech, religious diversity, and protests were suppressed. Pluralism was rejected, and the nation became increasingly engulfed in violence, hate speech, and disinformation.
The values Bolsonaro embodies are not new. Having spent 27 years in political life, he was already notorious for his incendiary rhetoric. Throughout his four-year term, he openly dismissed scientific expertise, rejected vaccines, and expressed support for torture, even the elimination of political opponents. Bolsonaro bears direct responsibility for more than 700,000 deaths in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. Remember Judge Moro? Bolsonaro later appointed him as the Minister of Justice.
Forty minutes is far too short a time to fully explain everything Brazil has endured as a result of Bolsonaro's reckless policies. But it is crucial to understand that when there are attempts to manipulate or redirect a country's political course, one common strategy is to foster an environment of distrust and instability, precisely because such conditions become fertile ground for the spread of fake news.
Today, Professor Wang Hui's presentation on the five monopolies offered valuable insights into these dynamics.
Bolsonaro's Election and Its Consequences
In Brazil, voting is compulsory. During the 2018 elections, out of 147 million eligible voters, 116 million cast their ballots. Bolsonaro secured victory with over 55% of the valid votes, meaning approximately 57 million Brazilians voted for him. How did such a candidate garner such widespread support?
Bolsonaro's campaign team successfully propelled him into office through the automated dissemination of viral messages containing false information. Investigative reporting by Brazilian media has uncovered aspects of this scheme, exposing an extensive network of private companies involved in the effort. These entities financed large-scale disinformation campaigns against the Workers' Party, primarily through platforms like WhatsApp. Contracts linked to the spread of disinformation during the 2018 election amounted to more than $5 million. These actions were illegal as they compromised the integrity of the electoral process, manipulated public opinion, and inflicted damage on democracy.
However, at its core, for information to truly resonate with people, it relies primarily on sentimental manipulation. If a message fails to capture attention, further amplification is futile. This is not merely a structural issue, it is also a question of delivery. Indeed, such sentimental manipulation is neither a novel strategy nor unique to social media. Throughout history, hasn't nearly every major successful war gained legitimacy through the skillful manipulation of public sentiment? Whether it was the fear of communism, nuclear weapons, the loss of freedom, or the loss of private property, these narratives have long been used to justify action.
The culture industry consistently engages in the manipulation of public sentiment. A telling example is the 1974 documentary Hearts and Minds, which examines the Vietnam War and reveals how the U.S. government and political actors employed manipulation techniques to shape popular perception. Information that could have damaged the war's image or questioned its legitimacy was suppressed, while the Vietnamese were portrayed as brutal and implacable enemies—all to stoke patriotism. This practice remains a recurring theme within the cultural industry: the systematic demonization of communists, Russians, Vietnamese, Palestinians, native Americans, Chinese, and others. Who becomes the target of demonization depends not on principle, but on whose interests are being served.
In the case of Brazil, the fears of the people were unmistakable. During the 2018 election, a flood of fake news circulated, much of it so absurd that it's difficult to put into words. Yet its impact was undeniably decisive in shaping the electoral outcome.
In his book The Engineers of Chaos, Italian author Giuliano da Empoli examines the phenomenon of social networks and the ways in which technology can amplify political marketing. The author analyzes case studies ranging from Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to the Brexit referendum, demonstrating how the fusion of psychology, technology, and communication can sway public opinion, destabilize democracies, and manipulate voter intentions.
From a psychological perspective, the author explains that sentimental manipulation on social networks is a technique designed to tap into and direct collective sentiment. By engaging users with messages, images, and videos that trigger intense emotions, such as anger, fear, sadness, and joy, political actors can transform individuals into a unified non-political community.
Da Empoli further emphasizes that such technology not only manipulates public sentiment through social networks, but also enables the collection and analysis of vast amounts of user data, including interests, preferences, behaviors, and emotions. He names to the technology "engineers of chaos," capable of crafting highly personalized messages that resonate deeply with individuals. Consequently, major tech platforms have built ecosystems that are directly complicit in distorting electoral outcomes and manipulating voter sentiments across numerous countries.
Fake news distributed via social networks also plays a crucial role in this process, as fear and hatred often take root through lies. A study from Indiana University revealed that false stories are 70% more likely to be shared than factual reporting. In essence, these "engineers of chaos" polarize public opinion through the spread of disinformation.
The Cycle of Hatred
During Bolsonaro's years in power, fear increasingly turned into hatred, a sentiment that spread far beyond social media. For many reasons, inflammatory rhetoric permeated public life and violence became a daily reality.
According to data from the Brazilian Army, Bolsonaro's administration issued over 900,000 firearm registration permits to gun collectors and hunters throughout his four-year term, averaging 691 certificates per day. This normalization of violence led to new victims emerging daily. The situation grew especially severe during the election period, which was marked by a continuous surge in incidents of political violence. Behind these developments lay a clear agenda: the freedom to own a gun in turn generates substantial profits for the weapons industry.
After losing the popular vote, Bolsonaro retreated from the public eye and departed for the United States. His refusal to concede defeat and persistent efforts to discredit Brazil's electoral system laid the groundwork for the event that followed. Bolsonaro's supporters gained influence in several provincial capitals, colluding with military police and segments of the mainstream media. On January 8, a massive crowd stormed into the Congress, the highest symbol of our democratic institutions and the people's will. This event serves as a grim, almost apocalyptic echo of the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack and stands as a historic humiliation for Brazil.
We have also witnessed a wave of violent attacks targeting public schools. In February, public schools across Brazil were struck by a series of threats and assaults that resulted in tragic casualties. I apologize for bringing this up right after lunch, but it's something that must be said. Two incidents, in particular, caused profound alarm and are especially hard to comprehend.
In one, a man broke into a nursery and killed four young children. In another, a student fatally stabbed a teacher in his seventies. Why mention such grim events? To underscore that beyond the swirl of social media, there are real issues.
In response, our Ministry of Justice, under the leadership of its minister, launched Operation Safe School. Within just ten days, nearly 300 individuals were arrested. The ministry is investigating 1,224 threats nationwide, and 694 adolescents have been brought in for questioning.
Recognizing the risk of further violence, media outlets quickly agreed not to disclose the identities or images of the perpetrators. It became clear that closed groups on social networks and messaging apps were spreading false information aimed at instigating panic. This led many schools to close, and left parents afraid to send their children to class.
Official surveys have revealed that a number of individuals have referenced Bolsonaro or even neo-Nazi ideology in their social media posts, a disturbing trend that has become increasingly entrenched in Brazil in recent years. Anthropologist Adriana Dias, in her study entitled Observing Hate, outlines striking parallels between global neo-Nazi networks and right-wing movements in Brazil.
Dias is renowned for her in-depth investigations and successful infiltration of neo-Nazi groups within the country. In 2021, for instance, she scoured multiple neo-Nazi websites and uncovered a letter signed by Bolsonaro back in 2004— evidence that indicates the connection between Bolsonarism and the promotion of neo-Nazi ideology.
Her research has mapped approximately 530 neo-Nazi extremist centers across Brazil, involving an estimated 10,000 individuals. This reflects an alarming increase of 270.6% from January 2019 to May 2021. She also emphasizes that although these centers were once largely concentrated in the south, they have now spread throughout the entire country.
In Brazil, major tech companies are also being held accountable for their role in the interconnected spread of violence, Bolsonarism, far-right extremism, and neo-Nazi ideologies.
Minister of Justice Flávio Dino demanded that Twitter adopt a stricter approach to content promoting school attacks and remove all accounts disseminating violent material. Although Twitter initially attempted to distance itself from responsibility, Flávio escalated his rhetoric with a threat to suspend the platform's operations across Brazil. This pressure ultimately led Twitter to remove hundreds of accounts linked to the abuse of children and adolescents.
However, the situation remains unresolved. The Congress is currently reviewing a bill aimed at regulating social media platforms— a highly contentious issue that has, so far, stalled progress. At its core, the bill seeks to hold the platforms legally responsible for content that incites violence and contains hate speech. In the words of President Lula: Major tech companies have "normalized the absurd," and the corporations that control social media are profiting from the spread of fake news, hate speech, and the promotion of weapons.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, immediately voiced opposition to the proposed bill, claiming it contravenes existing Brazilian legislation. Google also joined the criticism, inserting a banner at the bottom of its webpages stating: "The Fake News bill could make it harder for Brazilians to distinguish truth from falsehood." Such statements come from these companies, how ironic is that?
Beyond publicly stating their positions, these platforms have the ability to limit the visibility of content that supports the bill. Amid pressure from tech giants and lobbying by Bolsonaro's allies, the bill has faced significant obstacles in moving forward in Brazil. Their argument remains consistent: regulating social media amounts to censorship and resembles authoritarian measures that suppress free speech.
It is clear that the far-right is unwilling to relinquish an environment where it thrives and which helps maintain its influence. A study published this year revealed that far-right content was both more effective and efficient during the 2022 election cycle. Analysis of posts across multiple platforms shows that right-wing content not only achieved higher publication volumes but also attracted significantly more interaction than left-wing posts. Although left-wing posts were more numerous on some platforms, they received 40% less engagement compared to right-wing content.
I want to emphasize a crucial point here. Despite the Brazilian government's extensive efforts to re-elect Bolsonaro—deploying strategies, state agencies, the police, the military, and a wide range of institutional resources—nothing could prevent President Lula's victory. This triumph belongs to the Brazilian people, and it serves as a powerful sign that our efforts have not been in vain. I would also like to take this opportunity to make a brief public statement: Between September and October, during the presidential election, Brasil de Fato's content was shared and read over 150 million times online—on our website and across every platform where we publish. We are gradually finding our footing.
That said, President Lula still faces significant challenges in his third term, particularly when it comes to high-quality communication of national content.
Our Communication
I've been reflecting: what about our communication? What are we truly creating? Throughout history, humanity has developed diverse ways of producing and consuming information. These methods actively shape society. It's a continuous, iterative process. The time we invest and the manner in which we consume information directly influence how media companies produce content. This, in turn, affects the kinds of information we absorb and create.
Today's world population exceeds 8 billion people. Among them, there are 8.46 billion mobile phone users and 4.76 billion active social media users. In Brazil, the third most active country on social networks, 152 million out of approximately 210 million people are active internet users. The most popular platform is YouTube, with 96% penetration, followed by Instagram and Facebook.
As a left-wing media leader, I often find myself asking: What kind of content should we be disseminating to counter hate-driven narratives and political rejection? How can we build a broad base that enables us to both recognize and critique hegemonic behavior? My own political and professional formation began within village workers' organizations. For me, communication has always been a powerful catalyst for social transformation.
We must remember: the vast ecosystem of channels, platforms, and social networks is largely controlled by adversarial forces. They are determined to prevent us from reaching a broad audience at any cost. While we do not rely exclusively on these platforms, there is an urgent need to strategize our way out of this digital dependence. We must innovate now to pave the way for building our own alternatives in the future.
The traditional left-wing outlets often reach a predominantly male audience, one that is typically older, highly educated, and politically consistent. In contrast, Brasil de Fato has managed to break this mold by connecting with a great number of young women. This expansion is due in large part to our strategic social media operations, which are designed to attract users from these platforms and guide them to our own website. Most importantly, it must be stressed that a substantial portion of our web traffic is organic and direct. This demonstrates that our reach is not solely dependent on social platforms.
We are aware that global perceptions of Brazil are largely shaped by mainstream media narratives. That is precisely why we have taken the initiative to translate some of our reports into English and Spanish. These English-language reports are now reaching audiences who previously knew Brazil only through the lens of mainstream media outlets. It is essential for all of us to look beyond our own borders and share a fuller story of global struggles.
To me, this represents a crucial opportunity to engage new audiences and amplify counter-hegemonic narratives on a wider scale. That said, our success cannot be measured by numbers alone. What truly matters is the political impact of our content. While finding ways to assess political gain is important, it is also far more challenging.
I must admit, I don't have a ready-made answer either. I remain unconvinced that any single personal perspective can illuminate the way forward in such a complex reality. But I am certain of one thing: our true compass will always be class struggle. As the Brazilian writer Paulo Leminski states, "Every weapon in class struggle, be it a stone, the night, or a line of poetry, is a good weapon." That is why I believe our tools extend far beyond access to information. Art, culture, and spirituality are also vital tools that can help us overcome these profound challenges. They are essential to deepening our subjectivity and consciousness.
While I maintain a critical perspective toward some classic theories of journalism, I do not dismiss them outright when reflecting on left-wing communication. I believe journalistic methods can guide us toward the facts, help establish credibility, allow space for contradictory voices, stimulate meaningful discussions, and ultimately develop proposals that serve the working class.
That said, we must also understand the strategies employed by the far-right and their skill in manipulating public sentiment. As powerful as these strategies may seem, we must neither emulate them nor concede defeat in our own struggle. We would not, and should never, adopt such methods. Instead, a revolutionary communication culture, one rooted in truth and collective consciousness, is possible and essential for lasting success.
I sincerely hope this enlightens the entire Brazilian left on the crucial and core role communication must play in the class struggle. This is about shaping socio-political thought, which is precisely why we must strengthen collective subjectivity. It requires deep reflection: the form matters as much as the content. That means reinforcing media channels dedicated to defending the people's interests.
We must also acknowledge the foundations laid by classical theory. It emphasized the vital importance of media, from state and party media to grassroots mass media, and learned from revolutionary communication processes across the world. We draw inspiration from sources like Lenin's Spark, Marx’s Rhenish Newspaper, and Cuba's Granma. We are nourished by the insights of Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and Kollontai; by the experience of the Chinese Communist Party; and by the revolutionary publications that emerged during China's struggles in the 1920s.
Yet ideological reformation is both essential and urgent. Given the environment in which we operate, we must evolve and develop political communication practices suited for the 21st century, and we must do so through the social networks. I have no doubt we have chosen the most challenging path. But every day, we reaffirm our commitment: conscience over manipulation, truth over falsehood, collective construction over chaos, knowledge over ignorance, and hope over fear.
This is a long-term endeavor, not an immediate fix. It demands persistent effort, continuous refinement, dialectical analysis, and extensive practice. I hope that, despite our different backgrounds and contexts, we can come together more often to share experiences and advance toward this common goal. This isn't just about sharing content or expanding our audience: that alone is not enough. Many technical strategies promise greater influence on social media, but often the content becomes mere grandstanding, lacking in-depth analysis. Such approaches fall short of the standards of good journalism.
What we need is to achieve our goals on the basis of long-term development, collaborative effort, and political clarity. We must understand what kind of communication we are building, and what goals we are aiming at. Our mission is undoubtedly challenging and extended in time, but our goals are not temporary. They must be cemented into a culture that breaks monopolies of thought. All I can say is, let's fight it out together.
Thank you.
(Transcribed from recording and edited.)