It is important to note that most if not all previous versions of the bill contained appalling dispositions that urged Brazilians to sound the alert abroad and I am thankful that many foreign activists and scholars answered and weighed in. While there remain controversial and perhaps even unconstitutional dispositions in the version that emerged from the Senate, none compare in their predictable negative social impact as the previous version of article 7 that would have forced social networks to required picture IDs from any user upon registration, or dispositions that would have increased the jail time for online defamation or even the obligation of social networks to moderate 'disinformation'. 

The attitude of many civil society groups that did not carefully go over the current version, however, remains one of rejection of the bill in its entirety. With the text changing rapidly, the Senate’s disregard for civil society input and elements of the bill lost in translation, many foreigners who have never had the opportunity to actually read the text of the bill seem to be under the impression that it still contains all of the worst aspects of each version that was circulated. 

My concern results not only from the fact that this is not the case, but also from my opinion that there are dispositions in the bill that would create much needed guarantees to protect users from social networks. Articles 12 and 13 would enshrine in legislation safeguards that scholars (including in this list) have recommended for years. It is my opinion, therefore, that civil society should use its precious time and efforts to criticize and try to repel specific dispositions (the proverbial bath water) and perhaps save articles 12 and 13, if nothing else - there are other dispositions that are very welcome, such as articles 14, 15 and 18, first paragraph.