In October 2026, a troubling story emerged from Brazil. Internal communications at Meta — the company behind Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook — revealed that the accounts of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had suffered unexplained restrictions during the country's election campaign. At the same time, the platform appeared to be recommending the profile and WhatsApp channel of his rival, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro.
The details, reported by Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, were alarming. Some of Lula's posts appeared without a share button. Others suffered reduced reach, meaning far fewer people saw them. Some stories prevented users from reacting or sharing content. A few posts even played without audio or at an accelerated speed — technical "errors" so specific and so convenient that many found them difficult to dismiss as mere accidents.
Meta, predictably, denied any political motivation. The company insisted that the issues were already public knowledge and that internal discussions had concerned only the severity of the technical problems, not any deliberate interference. "Any suggestion that Meta favours one side is false," the company stated. Whether or not you believe that, it raises an uncomfortable question: does it matter if the interference was intentional? The damage to democratic participation may be the same either way.
Lula's party announced it would file a formal complaint before the Organization of American States, accusing Meta of manipulating social media during the election. Meanwhile, a justice at Brazil's top electoral court ordered Meta not to unjustifiably limit the reach of political content from either candidate until the end of the runoff campaign on October 25. The ruling also required that Meta's own AI chatbot must not favour either candidate when producing election-related content.
Brazil is not alone. Social media companies have faced similar accusations in elections across the world. The pattern is familiar: a corporation with enormous power shapes what millions of people see — and conveniently, the shaping seems to benefit one side. Whether this is the result of deliberate choices or careless algorithms, the effect on democracy is deeply concerning.
The real scandal, perhaps, is not what Meta may have done, but what it is permitted to do. These companies operate with little meaningful regulation, and the rules that do exist are difficult to enforce. Until governments are willing to impose serious limits on how platforms can handle political content, elections will remain, at least partly, in the hands of Silicon Valley.