Architectures of Opacity: denialism, disinformation, and the erosion of access to information under the Bolsonaro administration

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: This article analyzes how negationist disinformation and public policies of opacity structured an authoritarian information regime in Brazil during the Bolsonaro administration (2019–2022). Method: The research adopts a qualitative and documentary approach, combining theoretical review on information regimes and denialism with the analysis of normative acts, administrative measures, and official discourses. The methodology included a survey of decrees, provisional measures, and presidential speeches, with emphasis on their effects on institutional transparency. Generative artificial intelligence was used for text revision and final evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Results: The main findings reveal the deliberate construction of an "architecture of opacity," consisting of the expansion of secrecy classifications, dismantling of the National Archives, extinction of participatory councils, and the strategic use of digital communication to spread disinformation. The study demonstrates that these actions undermined access to information, weakened institutional memory, and established a truth regime based on doubt and the delegitimization of science. Conclusions: The primary contribution of this study is to show that denialism functioned as a political technology and structuring language of an authoritarian model of informational governance. By instrumentalizing disinformation and weakening accountability mechanisms, the Bolsonaro government reconfigured the democratic foundations of the right to information in Brazil.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

da Silva Borges, J. (2025). Architectures of Opacity: denialism, disinformation, and the erosion of access to information under the Bolsonaro administration. Encontros Bibli, 31. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2026.e106750

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free