Meta Denies Bias Against Lula in Brazil Race

Meta denied that Facebook and Instagram were tilted toward conservative candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. It said its algorithms do not use ideological criteria and that its rules apply equally to users and content. Lula’s campaign had accused the company of reducing his posts’ reach, shutting his advertising account, and leaving hostile fake profiles online. The dispute matters because the Superior Electoral Court could order changes before the runoff.

Meta admitted two mistakes or technical problems. Its systems wrongly suspended Lula’s campaign advertising account on 23 September after flagging an advert about a government social programme as possibly fake. The company said it quickly reversed the block. It also acknowledged a global incident on 7 October that stopped Instagram video view counts updating for several hours.

Meta argued neither problem targeted Lula. It said the view-count failure affected users worldwide and was not limited to political content. The judge will consider the campaign’s response and the electoral prosecutor’s reply before ruling on urgent measures.

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, known as the TSE, is the body that runs national elections. In this case, Judge Marco Aurélio Bellizze handles the complaint brought by Lula’s electoral alliance against Meta. The court’s involvement matters because platform decisions can affect campaign visibility during the final days before voting.

The judge already gave Meta 48 hours to explain itself and preserve moderation records, advertising data, and metrics. He also asked Agência Lupa and Democracia em Xeque to explain their methods. Meta filed its response, denying ideological bias while acknowledging errors involving Lula’s advertising account and Instagram view counts.

The article says the judge can order an American platform to change how it treats campaigns before the 25 October runoff. Lula’s campaign and the electoral prosecutor each get 24 hours to reply to Meta’s filing. After those responses, Bellizze will rule on urgent measures.

Lula’s alliance alleged a sizable online operation attacking him and First Lady Janja da Silva. It pointed to 255 Instagram profiles allegedly run with artificial intelligence. Together, the profiles reportedly drew about 58 million views in one month. The alliance presented them as evidence that hostile content remained active while Lula’s own posts suffered reduced reach.

The alliance also cited a party study comparing the candidates’ engagement. Flávio Bolsonaro’s page reportedly received 2.96 times Lula’s engagement, even though Flávio had 17.2% fewer followers. Engagement can include reactions and other interactions with posts, while views measure exposure. These figures were used to support the accusation of “algorithmic selectivity.”

The figures remain allegations and campaign evidence, not a court finding. Judge Bellizze asked researchers and the fact-checker Agência Lupa about their methods. Meta denied targeting Lula and said it had preserved the cited posts’ logs and web addresses for the court.

“Algorithmic selectivity” is the accusation that a platform’s automated systems treat political content differently because of its viewpoint or candidate. In this dispute, Lula’s alliance used the phrase to claim Meta reduced the reach of Lula’s posts while allowing Flávio Bolsonaro’s content to perform better. The concern is unequal distribution during an election.

An intentional or systematic difference would involve platform rules, ranking, moderation, or recommendations repeatedly affecting one side. The alliance cited Flávio’s higher engagement and alleged hostile profiles as supporting evidence. Those signs may raise questions, but they do not by themselves reveal the cause or prove an ideological decision.

Meta described the 7 October incident differently. It said a global technical fault stopped Instagram video view counts updating for several hours. The problem affected users worldwide and was not limited to political content. That pattern fits an accidental service failure, rather than selective treatment of Lula, according to Meta.

Urgent measures are court actions designed to address a disputed situation before the runoff. The article does not list the judge’s final options, but it shows that he can require Meta to explain its conduct, preserve records, and potentially change how it treats campaigns. That authority matters because the election is only days away.

Bellizze already ordered Meta to preserve moderation records, advertising data, and metrics. He also required an explanation within 48 hours. Meta’s filing said an advert about a government social programme was wrongly flagged and that Lula’s advertising account was suspended on 23 September. The company said it reversed the block quickly.

A further order could affect whether campaign advertising runs, how disputed content is handled, or what data reaches the court. It could therefore change campaign communication before 25 October. Lula’s campaign and the electoral prosecutor each have 24 hours to respond before the judge rules.

Reach, views, and engagement measure what happened to content, not automatically why it happened. A candidate can receive different results because of audience behavior, post timing, content type, follower activity, or changes in measurement. The article reports a gap, but it does not establish that Meta created the gap for ideological reasons.

For example, Lula’s alliance said Flávio’s page drew 2.96 times Lula’s engagement despite having 17.2% fewer followers. That comparison is striking, but engagement is not the same as reach or support. The article also reports that Instagram view counts stopped updating globally on 7 October. A measurement failure could distort apparent performance without targeting one campaign.

Proving favoritism would require stronger evidence linking the difference to a platform decision or rule applied unequally. Meta denied ideological criteria and said Lula’s account reach on 7 October was above its recent baseline. The court asked for methods and preserved data before deciding what the figures show.

A presidential runoff is a second election stage in which the presidential contest is narrowed to the candidates named in the article: President Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro. Brazil’s runoff is scheduled for Sunday, 25 October. This direct contest makes campaign communication especially concentrated, because each side is competing against one opponent rather than a larger field.

Online platforms can matter because campaigns use them to distribute political posts and advertisements. Meta owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and Lula’s campaign says its advertising account was wrongly shut. It also alleges that his posts lost reach while hostile profiles attacking Lula and Janja gained millions of views.

That is why the court case is urgent. A platform error or court order could affect advertising access, content visibility, and the evidence available before voting. Meta denies favoring either side and says its problems were technical or accidental. The judge will consider replies before deciding urgent measures.