12 Dec 2025 | Americas, Brazil, News
Brazilian left-wing influencer Thiago Torres, best known as Chavoso da USP (roughly translated as the University of São Paulo’s swaggy chav), has faced increasing political persecution in the last months. This reached international levels last month when Thiago’s main Instagram profile, with more than one million followers, was taken down by Meta.
Thiago then started using an old backup Instagram account with 385,000 followers, which was also taken down after allegations that it had been created to circumvent the previous block. Arbitrarily and without possibility of appeal, Meta blocked all access to his accounts and is set to permanently delete their content. A warning on Instagram said that the account “does not follow Community Standards” although the company did not specify which specific rules had been breached. Even after a preliminary injunction was issued on the morning of 20 November that forced Meta to return Thiago’s main account under threat of a fine, three other accounts were taken down later that same evening.
By maintaining the block on the influencer, Meta is involved in yet another case of big tech insubordination to Brazilian justice according to politicians. Federal Congresswoman Sâmia Bomfim, from PSOL (Freedom and Socialism Party), classified the event as a “direct attack on freedom of speech and the work of those who denounce injustices within Brazil.” Thiago sees it as “an offensive against progressive, mainly radical, left-wing voices”.
This is not the first time Meta has taken down accounts with large numbers of followers linked to the Brazilian left. In August this year, historian and influencer Jones Manoel, former candidate for governor of Pernambuco with the PCB (Brazilian Communist Party) and the Brazilian influencer with the most growth on the platform since June, was arbitrarily banned from Instagram. In October, activist and comedian Tiago Santineli also had his 850,000 followers account blocked, following online comments about the death of Charlie Kirk.
Since 9 December 2025, members of parliament from PSOL, PT (Worker’s Party), and left-wing news outlets have reported that their profiles “don’t appear in searches, can’t be tagged, and [that] their reach has plummeted in an orchestrated manner”, according to Federal Congresswoman Fernanda Melchionna. This is known as shadow-banning.
The bans follow a dispute between big tech companies and the left wing government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva which dates from January 2025, when Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office sent an extrajudicial notification to Meta because of the company’s decision to stop using independent fact-checkers. The concern was that this would further exacerbate the problem of “fake news”, which became prevalent in the 2018 and 2022 election processes, particularly on the part of the Brazilian right wing. A major dispute between the Brazilian judiciary and Elon Musk’s X also took place last year, resulting in the social network being blocked in the country until Musk complied with court orders.
The regulation of big tech companies – largely similar to what the EU has instigated – is considered by the current government as a matter of national sovereignty. In July, President Trump sent a letter to Brazil’s president, Lula, imposing a massive 50% tariff that rendered the export of a range of Brazilian products to the USA unfeasible. According to the letter, the measure came as retaliation for the sanctions against big tech and in support of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a representative of the Brazilian far right and ally of Trump who was convicted for attempted coup d’état.
In his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, President Lula said that “even under unprecedented attack, Brazil chose to resist and defend its democracy. There is no justification for the unilateral and arbitrary measures against our institutions and our economy. The aggression against the independence of the judiciary is unacceptable.”
It is not only in Brazil that US intervention in favour of big tech been felt. Back in January, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg clearly stated on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast that “the US government has a role in basically defending [big tech] abroad”.
In the same week that Brazil hosted COP30 and witnessed the preventive arrest of Bolsonaro, the suspension of five accounts belonging to a left-wing influencer shows that big tech might also have a role in defending the US government’s interests abroad in Brazil.
Researchers like the Brazilian academic Walter Lippold denounce what they call “digital colonialism”, the interconnection between imperialist interests and big tech. To Brazilian sociologist Sérgio Amadeu, “online social networks and platforms controlled by big tech companies are geopolitical structures increasingly aligned with the far right.” In June, at seminars held by Bolsonaro’s right-wing Liberal party (PL), executives from Meta gave workshops teaching how to use AI and achieve greater reach on the platform.
Born and raised in Brasilândia, an outlying neighbourhood of São Paulo, Thiago Torres first rose to prominence as a social sciences student at the University of São Paulo.
Ranked many times as the best university in Latin America, the University of São Paulo subscribes to a national public education project aimed at social development. Despite this, USP remains elitist in the social and racial makeup of both its faculty and students. Thiago spoke about the way this composition shaped the production of knowledge within USP, and used his platform to share social theory with a wider public.
Now graduated and a teacher, Thiago has become known for denouncing cases of political corruption and police violence. Overtly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, it’s not surprising that his head is wanted by public officials and companies who benefit from the country’s social division.
In August this year, Thiago was called to testify in the controversial CPI dos Pancadões, a parliamentary commission inquiring into street funk parties. Under the pretext that they disturb public order, it is common for the military police to raid pancadões, using extreme violence and murdering the young people present, many of whom are from racial minorities and come from lower social strata.
Thiago’s account dedicated to police violence, @fim.da.pm (“End the Military Police”), is among those blocked by Meta. The company had until 28 November to return the influencer’s main account, but this didn’t happen.
“Instagram will face a daily fine for each day it fails to comply [with the judiciary decision]”, Thiago explained. “But it’s a relatively small fine for them, so it’s possible they might disregard the court order.” Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.
11 Dec 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Australia, News
Read Index’s statement on why Australia’s ban on social media for under 16s is disproportionate
When Australia passed a world-first social media ban for teens, there was a display of national pride from the prime minister, and even the Sydney Harbour Bridge was lit up in the country’s national colours, green and gold, to celebrate the historic achievement.
The law, which came into effect on 10 December, requires 10 platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from having accounts on their platforms, or risk fines of up to $49.5 million.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 had bipartisan support and sailed through Australian parliament last December. Seventy per cent of Australians are said to support it.
Australia is being feted. The EU, Malaysia, and others are said to be watching, including the UK, although the culture secretary has expressed doubts over whether it could be enforced in the country.
But a barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.
Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.
“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”
He added that there were alternative measures that many organisations were asking for, such as regulation and investment in digital literacy, which could have been put in place instead of an outright ban.
There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.
“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.
Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, who is also a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council with the Libertarian Party, has branded the ban the world’s most draconian legislation. He said that it was “as Big Brother as you can get” and that “even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this”.
Reddit was also reportedly looking at legal action, but has confirmed it will comply with the restrictions.
In submissions to Australia’s Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications last November, before it became law, the Australian Human Rights Commission said that it had “serious reservations” about the legislation. While it said that it understood the significance of protecting young people from online harm and the negative consequences of social media, the ban would affect some human rights outlined in international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
These include the right to freedom of expression and information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, as contained in both treaties.
Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.
“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”
But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.
He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”
Read Index’s statement on why Australia’s ban on social media for under 16s is disproportionate
8 Dec 2025 | Americas, Asia and Pacific, China, Hong Kong, News, United States
The Chinese telecoms giant Tencent is trying to muzzle a service that offers an uncensored view of what users of the Chinese social media platform WeChat, which has 1.3 billion users, are posting.
The FreeWeChat platform.com is operated by China-based anti-censorship organisation GreatFire.org (a 2016 Index Freedom of Expression award-winner) which tracks censored and uncensored posts from WeChat.
FreeWeChat works by identifying WeChat posts that contain certain “sensitive” keywords and archives and monitors them all to see whether they are subsequently deleted from the social platform.
Typical words that cause content to be flagged include the so-called three Ts: Tiananmen, Taiwan and Tibet. If a monitored post subsequently disappears, FreeWeChat marks it as “censored” or “user deleted” depending on who has removed it – WeChat or the user themselves.
FreeWeChat is an invaluable resource for shedding light on the workings of China’s censorship regime. In the time FreeWeChat has been operating, it has allowed more than 700,000 censored WeChat posts to remain available for both Chinese users and others with an interest in censorship in the country.
Now, the very existence of FreeWeChat is now under threat, and Index has teamed up with other human rights groups to try and stop it being taken down.
The first threat to FreeWeChat came on 12 June 2025 when Tencent, the Chinese media company which runs WeChat, engaged Singapore-based cybersecurity firm Group IB to send a letter to Vultr, the USA-based cloud hosting provider of the FreeWeChat.com website. The letter, according to sources close to GreatFire, asserted trademark claims, without citing any activity that violated US laws.
Tencent claimed that FreeWeChat was infringing intellectual property rights by using the WeChat trademark and wording as well as “displaying articles which are censored/blocked by WeChat official channels and features an app download QR code in order to access more ‘banned’ WeChat content.”
The letter called on Vultr to suspend the freewechat.com website. On receipt of the letter, Vultr suspended the server and asked for a response from GreatFire on Tencent’s allegations.
GreatFire said: “We responded promptly, raising both process (did Vultr have any evidence that Group IB was actually an authorised agent of Tencent?) and substantive (our use of the name WeChat on a website tracking censorship on WeChat does not infringe on those marks) concerns.”
A subsequent letter from Group IB to Vultr doubled down on Tencent’s complaints, saying that FreeWeChat’s use of the logo was not permitted because it was not an informative website but was instead “clearly acting as WeChat by promoting content forbidden by the platform”.
It went on to argue that FreeWeChat is not only infringing Tencent’s trademarks but also its copyright. It also said that FreeWeChat was breaking US cybersquatting and competition laws.
Index on Censorship became involved in the case earlier in the summer, helping GreatFire respond to the allegations. In July we sent Vultr a letter co-signed by 17 human rights, free expression, press freedom, and digital rights organisations, reiterating concerns that Tencent was weaponising Vultr’s trust and safety process against public interest actors.
In early August Vultr’s lawyers assured Index on Censorship that the company was “committed to resolving all disputes, including this one, in an efficient and equitable manner”.
However, on 28 November, Vultr issued GreatFire with a formal 30-day notification of termination of services, a threat to the service’s very existence. For now, the freewechat.com site is still live as GreatFire has moved FreeWeChat to a second hosting provider. Yet how long it will remain live remains unclear. GreatFire says it is unsure whether the new provider has been contacted by Group IB or Tencent. It seems certain it will be.
A GreatFire spokesperson said, “We don’t want this to happen again to our projects. It’s difficult enough for us to fight the Chinese censorship apparatus. Even though we have come out on the losing end of this dispute, we hope that by sharing our story, we will dissuade other bad actors from taking a similar approach in the future.”
You can read more details of the case and how to support GreatFire here.
10 Oct 2025 | Africa, Americas, Asia and Pacific, Australia, Madagascar, Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at social media restrictions in Afghanistan and the indictment of Letitia James.
Afghanistan
Taliban sources have confirmed that new restrictions on social media platforms in Afghanistan this week are intentional.
Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are among platforms facing disruption, according to global internet monitor NetBlocks, who also reported another internet outage in Kandahar province.
Last week saw a total telecommunications outage across Afghanistan, which Taliban officials told journalists was caused by old fibre optic cables that needed to be replaced. With this somehow causing a country-wide blackout of both internet and phone services.
USA
New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on charges of fraud as part of a wider push by President Donald Trump to use the Justice Department as a weapon against his political enemies.
In 2022 in her position as Attorney General, James had filed a civil lawsuit against the Trump Organisation, as well as aiding in a three-year criminal investigation into Trump’s New York business dealings that led to a now overturned $500 million fraud ruling.
In order to prosecute James and also the former head of the FBI James Comey who had investigated Russian interference in the 2016 elections (and was fired by Trump), the President installed his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan as interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. This was after her predecessor refused to bring charges against people Trump had characterised as enemies.
In September before these prosecutions started, Trump posted to Truth Social a message he later admitted was intended as a private memo to Attorney General Pam Bondi stating: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Comey this week pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to congress.
Australia
Canberra, Australia, 9 October, whistleblower David McBride, who was jailed for leaking documents that alleged Australian Special forces had killed innocent people in Afghanistan, had an application rejected to have his case heard by Australia’s High Court.
This is the latest in an ongoing battle to have his sentencing overturned.
During the original trial, the Australian Government moved to prevent McBride from seeking protection under Australia’s whistleblower laws by blocking expert witnesses from speaking, citing “public interest immunity laws”.
The former military lawyer-turned whistleblower was convicted of three charges last year and sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for the theft of classified documents and for passing the documents to journalists at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
The documents formed the bases of an ABC investigation titled ‘The Afghan Files’ that claimed Australian Special forces units had committed war crimes whilst stationed in Afghanistan.
McBride is the only person imprisoned in relation to these crimes.
Madagascar
Even following the dissolution of his government, embattled President Andry Rajoelina of Madagascar refuses to step down in the face of large scale youth-led protests.
Rajoelina said at a press conference: “I swear that if power cuts persist in the capital within a year, I will resign.”
Protesters from group Gen-Z Mada were not convinced, calling for more protests to take place on Thursday, during which rubber bullets and tear gas were used to disperse demonstrators. They also called for a general strike as a display that they reject the President’s promises.
Saudi Arabia
Human Rights Watch have told comedians who performed at Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Comedy festival that they “cannot accept” money that originated from the government of Saudi Arabia.
The statement comes as comedians who performed at the festival scramble to get public opinion back on their side.
Bill Burr, Louis C.K. and Omid Djalili have all attempted to spin their participation as positive, whilst comics Aziz Ansari and Jessica Kirson offered to donate their fees in a futile effort to buy back public opinion.
