In the so-called era of “digital freedom,” Meta has been accused of censoring cannabis accounts left and right. According to data from Brazilian patient and activist organizations, nearly 50 profiles related to medical cannabis—including associations, doctors, influencers, and even the Marcha da Maconha (their annual Weed March) in several cities—were suspended in a single weekend, as reported by Brasil de Fato. Of course, without a reason.
Apparently, freedom of expression doesn’t extend to cannabis activists, whether they focus on agriculture or medicine. If there are no judicial reasons for so many account takedowns, why is Meta censoring cannabis content on such a massive scale?
After the chaos caused by the company’s actions, the Brazilian government decided to step in.
Paulo Teixeira, Brazil’s Minister of Agrarian Development and Family Farming, has become the loudest voice against the tech giant’s policies, regarded by critics as arbitrary. He’s made it clear that he disagrees with the way Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp—decides who gets to use its platforms, and who wakes up one day to find their account gone.
After being informed by Congressman Eduardo Suplicy about the deletion of dozens of accounts, Teixeira personally contacted Vanderlei Mariz, Meta’s Head of Public Policy in Brazil, demanding answers.
During a live broadcast, the minister was blunt: “If the censorship comes solely from Meta, I demand the immediate reactivation of these accounts. […] If these removals lack legal grounds, we will not hesitate to take legal action to protect them, since their absence harms countless Brazilian patients seeking essential information and therapeutic alternatives.”
According to the Agência Pública, Meta admitted that there was no court order justifying the suspensions. The company attributed the incident to an “algorithm error” and pledged to review the cases manually.
Following the intervention, 20 accounts were reportedly reinstated, though no clear explanation was given for why they were taken down in the first place.
Activism and public health: what’s at stake
We’re not just talking about hours of work lost, followers gone, and projects abruptly cut short. We’re talking about an effective barrier to educational and medical information on Meta’s platforms. If activists can’t share knowledge about treatments and rights, patients can’t access life-improving resources or guidance.
Meta seems to know this, so much so that, under judicial and governmental pressure from Brasília, it reinstated 20 accounts. Still, that’s not enough: many more remain offline, and in times like these, every second counts.
According to digital rights lawyer Clayton Medeiros, these suspensions could constitute a “failure in service provision” and violate constitutional principles such as due process, defense, and the right to information.
Legal experts argue that the company’s actions may conflict with Supreme Federal Court rulings, which as far back as 2011 affirmed the constitutionality of public demonstrations in favor of legalization.
The Brazilian State moves forward
While Meta continues to censor educational content, Brazil keeps advancing in its medical cannabis regulation.
The country now has over 670,000 registered patients and thousands of licensed prescribers. Judges in various states have authorized associations and families to grow cannabis for therapeutic purposes, even as the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) struggles to create a comprehensive regulatory framework.
Although restrictions on flower and THC-containing products persist, courts and patients are pushing change from the ground up.
Recent surveys show that 66% of Brazilians support medical cannabis legalization, proof that the issue has moved beyond taboo status and into the realm of legitimate, broad social debate.
So, what does that tell us? As Brazil moves toward a more inclusive legal framework, digital censorship continues to remind us of an uncomfortable truth: the “freedom of expression” promised by social media platforms doesn’t apply equally to everyone. For some, it’s just another tool for silencing.
