Certain observations must be made from an outside perspective. They require detachment. This is why The New York Times was the first to describe the Brazilian Supreme Electoral Court's decision to give Alexandre de Moraes ample powers as "one of the most aggressive measures ever taken by any country in the attempt to combat false information."

The Justice, as widely publicized, can now act ex officio, without being provoked, taking down content he considers untrue. Social networks are obliged to comply within hours, under penalty of heavy fines and even suspension. The correspondent of the American newspaper summed up the electoral environment he's been following closely as flooded with attacks and "accusations that the candidates are Satanists, cannibals and pedophiles".

There is no reason to be ashamed, as we reproduce and or anticipate what has been happening in the rest of the world since digital media became predominant on the planet.

Those who follow the news have also known for a long time that the impact of all this on the elections has been brutal, as Folha and Patrícia Campos Mello revealed in 2018. The irregular promotion of content, similar to what was done against the PT candidate four years ago, supported by bolsonarists, was curbed this time by the electoral court, but the bag of evil is bottomless. Legislation can't keep up with technology while many lawmakers sit on preventive measures, showing little interest in stopping the mudslide. The media does not advance any faster either.

Last week, the newspaper showed that Facebook did not remove 39% of posts considered misinformation by checkers. The conclusion is from a study by UFRJ, which took as a sample 95 links reported by users to the Supreme Electoral Court. Yes, it's practically an aquarium, but it provides a sample measure, albeit timid, of what must be happening in the ocean. Even a basic lie lingers in the air, like a report by Jovem Pan radio, shared by congresswoman Carla Zambelli, who alleges an unrealistic propensity of electronic ballot boxes to hacker attacks. "We collaborate with the authorities" is the other side of Meta.

The press, on the other hand, denounces censorship or discusses the limits of freedom of expression, depending on the foot which is stepped on. The same Jovem Pan radio is obliged to broadcast Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's rights of reply for having called him a thief and other adjectives. The radio broadcaster, in which it is almost impossible to tell information from opinion, claims to be the target of prior censorship.

In an editorial, Folha, after claiming that fake news challenge democracy itself, argues that "the civil sphere of public debate" has the mechanisms to fight it. "Newspapers point out errors and fallacies, as well as expose opposing versions. Candidates have room to respond to opponents' attacks." Returning to the metaphor of the aquarium, it is necessary to recognize that journalism is more like a paper boat, with the scale of the business being that of aircraft carriers.

While the country watches on their phone screens as one side throws stones at Geni, who sees it from the other end, Folha publishes a survey that assesses, "ten days before the presidential elections, that support for democracy in Brazil reached 79%, the highest level of the historical series started by Datafolha in 1989". The previous record, 75%, had been set in August when the Letters to Democracy were written in the face of the explicit coup by Jair Bolsonaro and his allies. At the time, Maria Hermínia Tavares warned that the findings of the survey should not be taken with excessive optimism. "There are rival conceptions of democracy on the table, not captured by research," the professor wrote in her column. Oscar Vilhena Vieira also analyzed the paradox this past week.

The group dressed in yellow sees the election as an unlimited authorization, which cannot be discussed. That's what democracy is for them, not what's in the textbooks of political science. Does 79% support liberal democracy, elections and a free press, and respect for minorities, to name just a few of the current president's frequent targets?

In equal measure, the freedom of expression professed by Bolsonarism moves away from the scrutiny to which professional journalism is subjected, which values the accuracy and balance of the information it conveys. In addition to non-imputability, safe conduct for fallacies, and slander of all kinds, what matters is to guarantee the open-air ditch that carries the worst sewage, the one that the more impact it causes, the richer the liar gets.

Censorship is a legitimate concern of those who bow to democracy and preserve true freedom of expression. Anyone who isn't concerned about democracy these days is just thinking about monetization. It is going to get worse.

_{Translated by Cassy Dias}