This paper aims to analyze the short cycle of protests (digital and analog) led by Brazilian app drivers in March and April 2024. These protests, motivated by a controversial regulatory bill proposed by the Lula government, sparked broad debates among workers and researchers in Brazil due to their political and organizational ambiguity. In this sense, the paper attempts to address the connections between the bill presented to the national congress and the insurgency of Brazilian drivers against it.

To achieve this objective, we used materials of digital nature, specifically posts and videos made available on the digital profiles (YouTube and Facebook) of influencers and political candidates who represent the category. Having such materials in hand, we sought to conduct a content analysis of the selected posts, looking interpretively at the discourses that the actors share on the internet. By doing so, it was possible to observe how the leaders and influential actors in the category organize both the agendas and the language of the protest and how this content is received in terms of popular engagement and mobilization.

Our main conclusions are centered around the constitutive ambiguity of the drivers' protest, an ambiguity that is organized around two contradictory determinations. Thus, we find here a protest of significant proportions, which establishes a critique of the platforms' actions in Brazil and denounces their capacity to influence the regulatory proposals organized by the Government. This dissatisfaction, however, as we can observe in the ideas conveyed on social media, is often based on ideologies of autonomy and individual enrichment that flirt with right-wing political currents, known for their historical support of large capitalist business.

Based on these findings, it is possible to reflect on whether there is a rapprochement between Brazilian drivers and certain right-wing and far-right movements: Could the right be constructing the language of revolt that these workers use to criticize the platforms? On the other hand, we can see this experience as a moment of active protest by a category that does not usually organize to share demands, a moment that involved criticism of both the platforms and their conspicuous relations with the State. This situation, however, indicates that the certainty of “algorithmic injustice” does not necessarily lead to the automatic creation of an emancipatory project of broad proportions.