Brazil – a battleground for ‘populists’ and ‘woke’?
The Control of Information - how the rich ‘and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Harry S. Truman
The land of Brazil.
Brazil is the largest country in South America, and the fifth largest in the world. It occupies over half of the land mass of South America, and it shares a border with all of the countries of that continent except for Ecuador and Chile. The equator runs through the north of Brazil, and most of the country is tropical or sub-tropical. Its eastern border faces the Atlantic Ocean, with a coastline of over 4,500 miles. It has a wide range of tropical and subtropical landscapes and contains most of the Amazon basin.
Brazil has a population of over 200 million, most of whom live in the coastal regions. The majority of the population are Portuguese speakers, although some more isolated tribal regions still retain their indigenous languages. The country struggles with extreme inequalities, a deadlocked political system, and extreme polarisation of political viewpoints [1] here.
Competing and polarised ideologies.
Internationally, and not just in Brazil, competing ideologies are increasingly entrenching themselves. These are described as ‘left’, ‘liberal’ or ‘woke’ on one hand, and ‘right’, ‘nationalist’ ‘conservative’ or ‘populist’ on the other hand. Interestingly, the word ‘popular’ has been changed to ‘populist’ in order for popularity to be given a negative connotation. The causes of the so-called new ‘left’ and new ‘right’ encompass many issues including climate, agriculture, religion, health and healthcare, nutrition, migration, sex and gender, assisted dying, abortion, war, censorship and truth.
Of course some in the new ‘left’ and ‘right’ have views that do not align with others in their own group. However, generally the new ‘left’ tends to fall in line with official policy deriving from governments or national and global institutions, whereas the new ‘right’ is far more suspicious of all official positions.
For most of the twentieth century, the old ‘left’ aligned with the working classes, whereas the old ‘right’ aligned with those of wealth. The notion of ‘left’ and ‘right’ no longer aligns with social status. Those of the new ‘right’ often include people who consider themselves marginalised, including the working poor, whereas the new ‘left’ may include professionals, academics, those with immense wealth, the heads of large corporations and international institutions, such as the United Nations. Thus, the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are confusing, and hence for the purpose of this article, I will refer to these competing ideologies as ‘woke’ and ‘populist’. Both of these terms are viewed negatively by some people.
The pattern is for ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ sections to no longer debate their differences, but to treat ‘the Other’ with deep suspicion and discriminatory actions from the offset. This occurs in both everyday social interactions, and in high profile situations. Smearing of those with a different perspective has become normalised. Cancel culture, refusing to let those with a so-called ‘unacceptable’ opinion explain their viewpoint, is encouraged. Populist voices are more likely to be censored because many of the persons in senior positions in government, leaders of powerful corporations, international institutions and the mainstream media are in the woke category. Any populist politician or political leader is likely to have an unfavourable press. This is not to portray populist leaders as victims, or superior to woke leaders in any way; it is possible that they deserve criticism. However, woke leaders make equally dangerous misjudgements but are likely to be treated more gently by the censorship industry. Indeed, the director of the IFCN recently stated in a highly critical manner that it is populist politicians and parties that are calling fact checkers censors, thus highlighting the political bias inherent in the fact check industry – a charge that fact checkers always deny [2] here.
Hence, discrimination today is not exclusively between those of different social classes, ethnicities, nationalities, religion, or sex, although those discriminations still exist. The most pervasive form of discrimination in 2025 is between those who support opposing ideologies that did not exist until a decade or so ago – woke and populism. This is the world that today’s Brazil inhabits, and it is important to understand these international divisions in order to understand Brazil’s current censorship strategies.
Politics and free speech protections in Brazil.
Brazil is a federal presidential representative democratic republic, where the President is both head of state and head of the government. The administrative organisation of Brazil comprises of a federal government, 26 states, and municipalities. It has had six constitutions, one in 1988 was written following a period of military rule. Article 5 of the 1988 Constitution protects free speech, but this is not absolute, as exceptions are listed. These exceptions create ambiguity and challenges to free speech persist. This includes sporadic attempts by authorities to impose censorship through various means, including defamation laws and internet regulation [3] here.
The legal framework for free speech in Brazil is therefore a complex mixture of the 1988 Constitution, laws that infringe freedom rights such as the Penal Code that outlaws defamation, and the Law of Racial Crimes. Case law also applies in Brazil. The protection of free speech is therefore a complex matter [4] here. Brazil has been trying to introduce new laws to regulate the digital space, putting the onus on social media companies to carry the burden of censorship, in a similar manner to legislation in the UK and the EU. In 2023, social media companies including Google and Meta took out advertisements against the proposed legislation; so far this bill has not been passed into law [5] here.
The internet itself was largely unregulated until 2014, when the Internet Law was enacted in Brazil. This places access to the internet as essential for the exercise of citizenship and establishes basic principles, guarantees, rights and obligations for the use of the internet in Brazil [6] here. Further laws to regulate the digital space have been the subject of much debate in Brazil over many years. An AI bill is currently struggling through the Brazilian parliament, but so far has not been enacted [7] here.
Recent Brazilian Presidents: Bolsonaro and Lula.
President Jair Bolsonaro was President from 2019-2023. He was succeeded by President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva (Lula), who was previously president of Brazil between 2003-2011. As in the 2020 US presidential election, there were claims of irregularities in the 2022 election process.
Lula was a trades unionist from a poor background, who helped to form the Workers’ Party in 1990 after the end of a miliary dictatorship in Brazil. As president, he introduced social programmes and reduced debt and inflation, and left office with an 80% approval rating. However, in 2017 he was arrested on charges of corruption and was imprisoned; in 2021 his convictions were nullified by the Supreme Court, which enabled him to run again for the office of President [8] here.
Bolsonaro was from a military background; after leaving the military he entered politics, serving 27 years as a congressman where he was known as a conservative. He was elected as president in 2019, described as pro-right and a populist; for example, he was against abortion, same-sex marriage, and drug liberalisation. He was one of the few world leaders that downplayed the Covid pandemic, for example, he opposed lockdown measures. He lost the presidential election in 2022 in a disputed run-off, causing his supporters to protest the election result. This resulted in Bolsonaro being charged with organising a coup, and he now faces a trial which will probably take place in late 2025 [9] here.
Lula’s first year in office was analysed by the UN based NGO Global Policy Watch (GPW). GPW claims its own independence, despite operating from the UN headquarters. Their largely favourable report stated that Lula’s main goal of 2023 was to reignite economic growth and job creation with a particular focus on promoting gender equality, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability [10] here. These aims largely tie in with the ‘woke’ agenda.
Meanwhile, in the US, American Republicans who have a ‘populist’ world view have criticised Judge Alexandre de Moraes leading the investigation into the case of Bolsonaro. During a US House hearing, the US Secretary of State said he was considering sanctioning de Moraes for alleged human rights violations. One congressman criticised Brazil for its widespread censorship and political persecution of Bolsonaro and his supporters, including some US based individuals [11] here.
Censorship in Brazil
Because of the schisms in both international and Brazilian societies, when considering the evaluations of Brazilian censorship activities it is essential to consider views of analysists who favour ‘woke’ perspectives and those who favour ‘populist’ perspectives.
The establishment American think tank Freedom House report for 2024 stated that in Brazil independent journalists and activists risk harassment and violent attack. It cites violence against minorities, corruption, and deceased government transparency. It describes widespread disillusionment, and discrimination against LGBT+ people [12] here.
Concerning freedom of expression, Freedom House linked intimidation and harassment to Bolsonaro allies, including his family members. Their report stated that their involvement in disinformation campaigns continued after Bolsonaro left office. However, Bolsonaro supporters could have legitimate concerns that need addressing, rather than rating genuine concerns as disinformation. The Freedom House report also reported a fractious relationship between Bolsonaro and the Brazilian educational establishments, stating this had improved now that Lula was back in office. However, as Bolsonaro’s position was against the introduction of explicit sexual education and the trans agenda, this may have been the cause of discord. If Brazil considers itself a democracy, the introduction of such changes needs debate in order to get approval and acceptance, or not, of controversial policies.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) gets 55% of its funding from state sector, 22% from philanthropic foundations of those with immense wealth, and 11% from corporate donors [13] here; the majority of its funds are from establishments that favour a ‘woke’ agenda. The 2024 RSF report on Brazil stated that relations between media and state improved after Lula’s election. However, as Bolsonaro was challenging global discourse on issues such as Covid-19 and LGBTQ+ policies, the media were likely to be hostile to his political views, whereas Lula is more compliant with global strategies and hence is likely to get favourable media coverage. RSF acknowledges that structural violence against journalists remained a problem, as is the highly concentrated media ownership, and the effects of what RSF calls ‘disinformation’ still pose challenges [14] here.
These analyses contrast with a report from the conservative Christian legal and lobbying group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International. It is funded by American Christian evangelist donors. In 2024 they appealed to the American based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) concerning ongoing Brazilian censorship and press violations. ADF states these restrictions are amongst the worst in the world. Some specific concerns raised by ADF concerned the Brazil media’s reaction to Lula’s pro-abortion position, and to his approval of explicit sexual education for children. Journalists Paulo Figueiredo and Michael Shellenberger had been subject to secret criminal investigations by Brazilian authorities for investigating the authoritarian drift and censorship efforts of the Brazilian courts. In particular, criticisms were made of the controversial high court judge, Alexandre de Moraes [15] here. Shellenberger stated that “Brazil has reached a crisis point where a single High Court Judge could wield his authority to shut down X…” [16] here.
De Moraes has been given authority to investigate ‘fake news, slander, and threats against the honour and security of the Court’. He is a high-profile figure in Brazilian censorship activities. He led the investigation into Bolsonaro known as the Fake News Inquiry, he ordered social media platforms to block accounts, and he temporarily banned X from operating in the country for refusing to comply with court orders [17] here. Elon Musk received worldwide publicity for trying to resist this order. In the context of this report, it is difficult to make a case for De Moraes as so far, no evidence has been presented that describes his reasoning in taking these dramatic measures.
The fact check industry in Brazil.
Clearly fact checkers in Brazil have a close relationship with the American International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) that heads to worldwide fact checking industry. The IFCN has an annual conference, called GlobalFact. In June 2025 the twelfth Summit, GlobalFact12 was held in Rio de Janeiro, and the controversial Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre De Moraes was invited to be the keynote speaker. Other speakers included Brazilian establishment figures Cármen Lúcia who is the president of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, and Brazilian Attorney General Jorge Messias. In their conference speech, they insisted that removing what they call misinformation from social media platforms did not interfere with free speech, and they called for more regulation, stating self-regulation had failed [18] here.
The director of the IFCN, Angie Holan, highlighted the presence of Brazilian authorities at GlobalFact 2025: She stated that De Moraes’s actions against platforms, such as X, were motivated by the determination to protect Brazilian democracy and force companies to comply with the law [19] here. However, documents were released in 2024 that revealed judicial orders were sent to platforms with instructions to take down profiles and content. The orders were not accompanied by justification, but they only conferred the decision to take certain pages offline. There were also no mentions of any anti-democratic attacks or any investigation into a possible coup plot within the Bolsonaro government [20] here. If these are the correct records of events, they do not prove that De Moraes was acting to protect democracy, as Holan claims. This also puts into doubt the credibility of IFCN, which has either not investigated or has ignored available documents concerning this event.
Brazilian fact checking platforms also took a prominent role in GlobalFact12. This included IFCN verified signatories Aos Fatos, Estadão Verifica, Lupa, and UOL Confere. Representatives from these platforms spoke on several panels. Meta was invited to attend the conference but declined the invitation [21] here. Since his January 2025 statement that Meta is ending third party fact checking the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has not made any further official pronouncements and until Mata’s position is decided it is unlikely that they would attend such events.
Altogether, thirteen fact check platforms were found in Brazil. Of these, two are overseas newswires, AFP and Reuters, that each have a fact checking office in Brazil. One Brazilian fact check platform is owned by an internet portal. Seven belong to media companies, including online and mainstream media. Three are independent fact check platforms, and one of these specialises in media literacy. The four platforms that took a prominent role in GlobalFact12 plus the French AFP and American Reuters are all IFCN verified signatories, and these six platforms all are contracted to fact check for Meta.
Looking at individual fact check platforms, Lupa is owned by UOL, which is Brazil’s largest internet portal. Its parent company Agencie Lupa is a newswire service that specialises in fact checking, cooperating with international newswires such as AFP and Reuters. As a newswire it sells copy to media organisations including Yahoo, CNN and many others. It also has an education service, Lupa Educacao, offering face-to-face and online training in fact checking, training over 7,000 people in Brazil, Portugal, Spain and Africa [22] here.
Its funding is derived from subscriptions and technical partnerships linked to its internet portal activity. Its fact checking activities have been funded by Meta, (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), TikTok, Twitter, Google, Google NI, and various American and European philanthropic foundations. It has also been contracted for third-party fact checking for a Brazilian magazine [23] here.
In June 2025 Lupa launched the Lupa Observatory, the stated purpose is to research factors that are akin to its own business focus – named as disinformation by Lupa, but other media observatories throughout the world research censorship practices. Lupa describes the intended functions as research and report writing, finding and coordinating international research in order to fit Brazil into the global network, and to design tools for fact checking activities. The funding for this new venture was not announced [24] here.
Another prominent platform is Aos Fatos, a registered company operating an online investigative journalism and fact check platform. Its team includes journalists, data scientists, OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) specialists, programmers, and innovation specialists. It claims four main sources of income: Licensing its journalistic content; selling technology and intelligence services; sponsorship; and membership subscriptions [25] here.
It undertakes third party fact checking services for Meta, Telegram, Twitter, and Kwai. It offers consultancy services to Spotify and Google. In this it cooperates with the British Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and the Brazilian think tank Internet Lab; the GDI specialises in demonetarising services applied to those who dissent from approved narratives. Aos Fatos has two tools that it offers to clients on subscription; Radar a monitoring tool, and Escribe, a translation tool that has 10,000 subscribers. Its sponsorship comes from European and American foundations and corporations such as Google/YouTube. It has also been sponsored by the ICFJ (International Center For Journalists) [26] here. Aos Fatos seems to be operating on similar lines to the European Bellingcat and EU Disinfo Lab [27] here, combining fact checking with an intelligence activities and acting on behalf of those with immense wealth and power.
Estadão Verifica is the fact check platform of Grupo Estado, a media company that operates a print newspaper, a newswire, an online news portal, and a radio station. It is a member of Meta’s third-party fact check team for which it receives remuneration. It has a very prominent banner to encourage paid subscribers [28] here. Globally, most fact check platforms linked to media organisations are subsidised by their parent company.
Other fact check platforms include UOL Confere which is part of a media group, funded by advertising and Meta [29] here, and Comprova that fact checks on behalf of 42 media outlets. This was founded with the assistance of a prominent American censorship organisation, First Draft. Comprova’s website states that it is funded by GoogleNI and Meta [30] here.
COAR is an independent Brazilian fact check platform, launched in 2020, operating in Northeast Brazil. COAR works with fact-checking communities; produces reports on local and regional culture, science and independent journalism; and offers courses, workshops, lectures and training in media literacy. It is a partner to Comprova and its website names GoogleNI as its funder [31] here.
Another large Brazilian fact check platform belongs to an investigative journalism online news platform, Agencia Publica. The fact check section is called Truco. Founded in 2011 by female journalists, it now employs over 40 staff, the majority still female. According to Duke Reporters Lab, Truco is funded by Open Society, Omidyar, and the Ford Foundation. On its own funding page, Truco states that it gets 65% of funding from international foundations, 8% from Brazilian foundations, 3% from corporates, 10% from allies, and a further 10% from international cooperation [32] here. Other Brazilian fact check platforms that were examined follow similar funding patterns and have similar functions to those described above.
Discussion.
All of the people of the world face the same dire issues – in particular the possibility of a world technocratic government, as described by Patrick Wood [33] here. The dominant ideology which both ‘sides’ ignore is the development of a system of global governance. Those who decide policy sit above the level of governments as shown in Iain Davis’s Global Public Private Partnership (GPS) theory [34] here. GP3 policy makers include the Bank of International Settlements, Central Banks, wealthy philanthropists, and undemocratic associations, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bilderbergers. The mechanism for global government is described in a UN publication called “Our Global Neighbourhood” (1995), exposed by UN researcher Henry Lamb [35] here. Lamb states that global government cannot be installed without a global system of NGOs working to control the agenda – and fact checkers are exactly that system. Details of the long term origins and funding of eugenics – a core policy of global governance – can be found here [36] here.
This has not been openly discussed by the mainstream media, and it is only discussed by a small number of alternative websites. However, the moves towards a technocratic global government can be witnessed, as every country moves in the same direction in a similar time frame. This includes a global digital identity based on DNA, increasing AI surveillance, the promotion of Central Bank Digital Currencies, which then makes it possible for states to control all financial transactions, and policies akin to eugenics are being introduced globally. There are changes in agricultural output and reduction of food supply especially red meats and dairy foods, with health policies being based on the needs of communities and pharmaceutical corporates with little respect for the individual’s right to bodily autonomy. Challenges are being made to family unity and parental control, and the state is active in the sexualisation of children. Whilst movements in cities are increasingly restricted blamed on climate concerns, migration is at an all-time high, and governments throughout the world are using fear as a means of control. These are euphonised, described in terms such as preserving human rights including children’s sexual rights, improving health, keeping people safe, making financial transactions more convenient, anti-racist agendas, and protecting the planet.
Whilst populations worldwide are divided by competing ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ ideologies, these divided people are persuaded to decry ‘the Other’. A better policy would be for everyone to be enabled and encouraged to listen to the concerns of each side and then finding areas in which to work together. In both the ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ arenas many individuals are mainly focused on one topic, i.e., ending wars, or transgender policies, or migration. For example, the migration issue is highly rated amongst those who support populism. However, on the migration issue, neither woke nor populist leaders – nor the media - address the issues that cause migration – such as war, implementation of carbon credits, and unfair world trade rules. By exploring the causes of the recent dramatic increase in migration, ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ could find areas of agreement and move forward together.
Globally, national leaders mostly support policies of those with immense wealth and power – those who decide policy; most democratically elected leaders and autocrats are compliant and follow a ‘woke’ agenda. Those contestants for positions of power that want to follow a more independent line often have popular policies and are attractive to sections of the electorate, but are obstructed – overthrown from power, arrested, barred from office, or smeared.
Brazil’s politics fit exactly into this scenario. Society is split with no means of conciliation, and the political leaders fit exactly into the ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ descriptions. The Brazilian legislature has been politicised, and is either making biased judgements, or is not providing evidence to support their rulings. The media follows a ‘woke’ agenda, and Brazilian censorship via the fact checking industry sees populism as its enemy. Lula, who before the ‘woke’ era was a popular Brazilian president of the left, was imprisoned after leaving office - until he demonstrated his compliance with acceptable ‘woke’ narratives when he was released. This was in time to fight for the office of president against a populist contender, Lula possibly being the only contestant with a chance of defeating ‘populist’ Bolsonaro at the polls. Since leaving office, Bolsonaro has been smeared by the media and judiciary and faces a legal trial.
Brazilian fact checkers themselves are inevitably heavily influenced by their global partners and their funders. The majority of their funding appears to come from US sources, with some European support. Some Brazilian platforms are supported by American and European philanthropy – those of immense wealth. Many are funded by American corporations such as Google and Meta. Some have links with international fact check organisations that have been very active in the censorship industry, such as First Draft, GDI, and the IFCN. Some have strong associations with Western media organisations. Brazilian fact checkers have a symbiotic relationship with the politicised Brazilian judiciary and are naturally supportive of more intrusive laws to control information. Of course, when legalised censorship becomes more intrusive, the censorship industrial complex has a more secure and prosperous future.
Fact checkers have no product to sell except censorship – they cannot survive unless they censor in line with their funders requirements, no matter how often they claim independence. They may call this dealing with disinformation, or content moderation, but these are only euphoniums for censorship. Looking at the fact checks on the Brazilian fact check websites, they all closely follow international narratives on issues such as climate, gender, and health, and few checks are supportive of Bolsonaro’s position. By comparison, a number of fact checks were found that were supportive of Lula.
Conclusion.
Brazil is a microcosm of the polarisation that is impacting every country in the world. The population is divided, and recent leaders epitomise the notions of woke and populist. Fact checkers stated aim is to defend democracy; instead they increase polarisation by leaning in one direction, inflaming those it demonises, describing protest as disinformation, and marking approved narratives as ‘truth. This is aggravated by a politicised Brazilian legislature, and a selected and compliant president.
This manufactured division between ‘woke’ and ‘populist’ hides the real issues of the creeping onset of world government and its total control of individuals through a system of technocracy. It makes genuine, respectful debate very unlikely. Underneath the divides, nearly all people want the best for their family, community, and country. What is needed is for both sides to listen, think, communicate and learn, and then stand together against those with no democratic mandate but with immense wealth and power, who wish to control us all.