given how the Brazilian state itself is notorious for censorship and turning into a judge-aucracy i guess not really about censorship bit rather who censors?
This is usually how it seems to go, the nations that are first and most interested in home-shoring (nationalizing? I don't recall what the right term here is) are those most interested in performing their own censorship activities.
Really, it kind-of is. Governments are supposed to answer to their electorate, while corporations answer to their shareholders. While I’d prefer no censorship, one of these is less likely to turn into a tyrant than the other.
we live in an unhealthy place in time, if everybody claims they‘re more democratic than the other side of the spectrum, yet conveniently traverses the agreed-upon boundaries of a level playing field and utilizes foreign or supra national support.
The EU’s core function is essentially that. While the Brussels institutions are hated almost unanimously by all Europeans, it’s virtually impossible to get rid off the EU, because it represents the chance to circumvent the local democratic process for all domestic parties. Its institutional undermining of domestic democratic institutions.
Imagine you being a pro-gay-rights activist inside the deeply catholic Poland: Would you go through the slow process of convincing the Polish citizenry or would you rather skip those decades and do it via the EU-Bureaucracy?
Same is true for dissidents whether in Brazil or EU which depend upon representation via media, yet need foreign media platforms to have a say at all.
Thus as much as I despise the Brazilian government and its autocratic judges, fundamentally it is morally improper to utilize foreign help.