They know what is happening. They choose not to act because it drives revenue.
Criminal faction videos on YouTube prompted Justice Minister Dino to propose revising Brazil's internet law to increase tech platform liability for harmful content. Dino argues platforms profit from violent content while avoiding responsibility, comparing video standards to traditional media that would face legal restrictions.
- Criminal faction videos from Sindicato do Crime circulating on YouTube since Tuesday
- Justice Minister Flávio Dino proposing revision to Marco Civil da Internet to increase platform liability
- Investigation opened against YouTube for potential Consumer Protection Code violations
- Two reality TV contestants expelled from BBB 23 for sexual harassment on Wednesday
- Legal action announced against federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro for racism and breach of decorum
Brazil's Justice Minister Flávio Dino argues the Marco Civil da Internet needs revision after criminal faction videos appear on YouTube, proposing stricter accountability for tech platforms.
Brazil's Justice Minister Flávio Dino sat down with UOL News on Friday with a straightforward complaint: YouTube has become a distribution channel for criminal gangs, and the law that governs the internet needs to change.
The trigger was immediate and concrete. Videos from the Sindicato do Crime—a faction that has terrorized Rio Grande do Norte since early Tuesday morning—were circulating on the platform. Dino's argument was simple but pointed: if a television station or cinema tried to broadcast footage glorifying organized crime and violence, regulators would shut it down. Yet on YouTube, the same material had been streaming for years without consequence. The difference, he suggested, came down to profit. Platforms claim they cannot police every upload, but Dino rejected that framing. They know what is happening, he said. They choose not to act because the content drives engagement and revenue.
His proposed fix targets what he calls the "duty of care" that tech companies owe their users. Under a revised Marco Civil da Internet—Brazil's foundational internet law—platforms would face stricter legal obligations to remove violent and criminal content. More importantly, they could be held financially liable when they fail. Dino framed it as a matter of basic fairness: if a traditional media company can be sued for broadcasting harmful material, why should a digital platform escape the same accountability? The law, he argued, had not kept pace with how the internet actually functions as a business.
Dino announced he would contact the National Consumer Secretariat within his ministry to open a formal investigation into YouTube for potential violations of Brazil's Consumer Protection Code. The allegation is that the platform provides a service—video hosting—while simultaneously enabling criminal activity and violence. That, in his view, crosses a legal line. The investigation could lead to fines or forced removal of content.
But Dino's concerns extended beyond criminal faction videos. He also weighed in on the reality television show Big Brother Brasil after two contestants, MC Guimê and Cara de Sapato, were expelled for sexually harassing fellow participants during a Wednesday night party. Dino praised the show's decision to remove them but went further, suggesting the program's format itself needed rethinking. Reality TV, he argued, had normalized sexual harassment as entertainment—treating it as a quirk rather than a crime. If the show's model inherently encourages that behavior to boost ratings, then the model itself requires revision. When authorities do intervene, they apply the law. But prevention, he implied, starts with the choices made by producers.
Dino also announced he would pursue legal action against federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro for racism and breach of parliamentary decorum. Bolsonaro had visited the Maré Complex, a low-income neighborhood in Rio, and suggested Dino's presence there meant he was meeting with drug traffickers. Dino called the accusation a deliberate lie designed to stigmatize poor people as criminals simply because of where they live. He saw it as both racist and defamatory—an attack not just on him but on thousands of honest residents being painted as inherently criminal. He said he would announce the formal charges on Monday.
The thread connecting these three issues—platform liability, reality TV norms, and political attacks on the poor—was the same in Dino's telling: institutions and individuals profit or gain advantage by ignoring harm. YouTube ignores violence. Television ignores harassment. Politicians ignore decency. His argument was that the law needed to make that indifference costly.
Notable Quotes
This has become part of a business model that generates enormous dirty money. We are proposing a revision of the Marco Civil to intensify the duty of care for big tech companies so they can be held civilly responsible and forced to pay.— Flávio Dino, Justice Minister
Why do the owners of these companies pretend not to see? Because they make money from it. The question is whether we will confront the glamorization of crime that generates new crimes.— Flávio Dino, Justice Minister
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Dino think YouTube is different from a newspaper that might publish a crime story?
Because a newspaper edits what it publishes. YouTube hosts thousands of hours daily and claims it cannot moderate everything. But Dino's point is that they could—they choose not to because the violent content attracts viewers and advertising money.
Is he saying platforms should be responsible for every video uploaded?
Not exactly. He's saying they should have a legal duty to remove content that clearly glorifies crime or violence, and they should face consequences when they don't. It's about shifting the incentive structure so that inaction becomes expensive.
What does the Consumer Protection Code have to do with YouTube hosting videos?
Dino argues YouTube is providing a service—a platform—while simultaneously enabling harm. If a restaurant knowingly served contaminated food, it would violate consumer law. He's making an analogy: if a platform knowingly hosts content that promotes violence, it's also violating the consumer's right to safe service.
Why bring up the reality TV show in the same breath?
Because both situations involve institutions that could prevent harm but don't, because the harm is profitable or entertaining. The show's format encourages harassment because it creates drama. YouTube's algorithm promotes violent content because it drives engagement. The incentives are misaligned with safety.
Is Dino overreaching by commenting on how a TV show should be structured?
He's not banning anything. He's saying the model should be reconsidered. It's a public official making a public argument about whether entertainment formats should normalize sexual violence. That's within his lane as Justice Minister.
What happens if YouTube ignores the investigation?
That's the open question. Brazil could fine the platform, force it to remove content, or restrict its operations. But enforcement against a U.S.-based company is complicated. The real leverage is whether other countries follow Brazil's lead.