The European Commission claims that its far-reaching Digital Services Act (DSA), “will give better protection to users and fundamental rights online.”
As so often, when you decode the EU doublespeak, it turns out the opposite is true. The DSA is really an attack on the most ‘fundamental right’ of all—freedom of speech. And the Commission is preparing to wield its new powers to undermine democracy for millions of ‘users’—otherwise known as the peoples of Europe.
It turns out to be European democracy that needs ‘better protection’—against the DSA and the Brussels technocracy.
The DSA empowers the Commission to police and suppress the views of populist and right-wing parties that don’t conform with Brussels’ worldview, under the pretext of combating ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation.’ This month’s elections in Slovakia are being used as a test run for the new regime of censorship online. Next year’s elections to the European Parliament are the bigger target.
Under the DSA, the Commission has handed itself extraordinary powers to police what we are allowed to say, see or hear online. Any Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) or search engine with more than 45 million users—the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Google and Instagram—will be required swiftly to remove content that is flagged as illegal, or hate speech, or disinformation. They will have to act even faster to censor posts complained about by bodies officially designated as ‘Trusted Flaggers.’
Failure to comply could see Big Tech companies hit with harsh punishments by the Commission, including fines of up to six per cent of their annual global revenue—estimated at around $16 billion in the case of Google. Faced with the threat of such penalties, Big Tech is likely to take a risk-averse approach—censor first and (maybe) ask questions later.
Material targeted by the Act goes far beyond already-illegal stuff such as child porn or terrorist manuals. As one expert says, “the DSA grants the European Commission not only the power to suppress illegal content, but also content they consider undesirable because it is allegedly detrimental to ‘civic discourse,’ public security, public health, and more.”
It is not hard to imagine such broad categories being applied to censor anything from criticism of lockdowns and vaccine mandates (‘public health’) to opposition to the EU arming Ukraine (‘public security’) or robust exposures of trans ideology (‘civic discourse’).
There is no pretence here of ‘independent’ regulation by some supposedly neutral body. The unelected, unaccountable, uber-woke European Commission boasts that it will be the direct regulator of Big Tech platforms. It is recruiting more than 100 staff to make sure that no heretical post goes uncancelled.
As ever in debates about freedom of speech, there are two closely-connected issues. Where do you draw the line? And who draws it?
Who will decide whether a post is simply controversial, or ‘disinformation’ that must be removed? Who will rule on whether somebody is just expressing an opinion that some find offensive, or spouting ‘hate speech’ that should be silenced?
Who are these ‘Trusted Flaggers’ that will nominate posts to be censored – and why should we trust them to decide what we can post, see or hear? The Romans asked, “Who watches the watchmen?” We should update that demand. Who checks the fact-checkers? Who flags the flaggers?
Don’t be fooled by the fact that this is not old-fashioned state censorship. The DSA’s system of indirect censorship hands unprecedented legal control of the internet to Big Tech and, behind them, the power of European Commission.
We might not live under the jackbooted tyranny of a Big Brother regime. But make no mistake, Big Brussels is Watching You.
Don’t take my word for it—listen to what they say about themselves. European Commissioner Thierry Bretton recently jetted into Silicon Valley to lecture Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk about the need to comply with the EU’s new rules. The Commissioner declared (“in the manner of King Louis XIV” as Dr. Norman Lewis commented), that “I am the enforcer. I represent the law, which is the will of the state and the people.” We might note that, like the legendary French king, neither the billionaires of Silicon Valley nor the bureaucrats of Brussels have ever won a single vote from ‘the people’ of Europe.
This is an attack not only on free speech but also on democracy. The Commission has Europe’s forthcoming election campaigns in its sights as a prime target for censorship. Commissioner Breton spelt this out in April, protesting that “malicious actors are actively exploiting online platforms to distort the information environment … especially in the run-up to elections.” He highlighted EU concerns about “the hybrid warfare happening on social media” in the run-up to September’s general election in Slovakia, and complained about the shortage of Facebook moderators to help control “the opinion building of the Slovak society”
As reported in The European Conservative, the EU elites want to interfere in the Slovakian elections to try to stop former prime minister Robert Fico and his NATO-critical Smer party from winning power. A former Stalinist who joined the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia only three years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fico may not look like everybody’s idea of a poster-boy for democracy. But Slovak voters should be free to make their own judgement, without the interference of the ‘malicious actors’ of the EU and their authoritarian laws.
And Slovakia is only the start, a test run for the systematic use of the DSA to police online discussion around next year’s elections to the European Parliament. Big Brussels is coming soon to an election theatre near you.
Democratic rights and free speech are always inseparable liberties. Democracy is about choice. How are we to make a reasoned choice without hearing the arguments of all sides, whether offensive to some or not, in an honest, no-holds-barred debate?
Restrictions on free speech attack the very basis of democracy: the idea that people are equal citizens who should be able to decide for themselves. A law such as the DSA reflects the prejudice that ‘ordinary people’ are too ignorant, too easily manipulated by demagogues, to be trusted with important decisions. Instead they are children who need to be guided by their betters in Brussels, told where to go and what to think by Trusted Flaggers, in order to reach the ‘correct’ decision—as decided in advance by the parental European Commission.
You need not be a free speech absolutist (like me) to see the dangers of letting Big Brussels rule the internet. The EU’s Digital Services Act is doing a serious disservice to free speech and democracy. Don’t let them tell us that’s disinformation.
DEMOCRACY WATCH
Big Brussels is Watching You
The European Commission claims that its far-reaching Digital Services Act (DSA), “will give better protection to users and fundamental rights online.”
As so often, when you decode the EU doublespeak, it turns out the opposite is true. The DSA is really an attack on the most ‘fundamental right’ of all—freedom of speech. And the Commission is preparing to wield its new powers to undermine democracy for millions of ‘users’—otherwise known as the peoples of Europe.
It turns out to be European democracy that needs ‘better protection’—against the DSA and the Brussels technocracy.
The DSA empowers the Commission to police and suppress the views of populist and right-wing parties that don’t conform with Brussels’ worldview, under the pretext of combating ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation.’ This month’s elections in Slovakia are being used as a test run for the new regime of censorship online. Next year’s elections to the European Parliament are the bigger target.
Under the DSA, the Commission has handed itself extraordinary powers to police what we are allowed to say, see or hear online. Any Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) or search engine with more than 45 million users—the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Google and Instagram—will be required swiftly to remove content that is flagged as illegal, or hate speech, or disinformation. They will have to act even faster to censor posts complained about by bodies officially designated as ‘Trusted Flaggers.’
Failure to comply could see Big Tech companies hit with harsh punishments by the Commission, including fines of up to six per cent of their annual global revenue—estimated at around $16 billion in the case of Google. Faced with the threat of such penalties, Big Tech is likely to take a risk-averse approach—censor first and (maybe) ask questions later.
Material targeted by the Act goes far beyond already-illegal stuff such as child porn or terrorist manuals. As one expert says, “the DSA grants the European Commission not only the power to suppress illegal content, but also content they consider undesirable because it is allegedly detrimental to ‘civic discourse,’ public security, public health, and more.”
It is not hard to imagine such broad categories being applied to censor anything from criticism of lockdowns and vaccine mandates (‘public health’) to opposition to the EU arming Ukraine (‘public security’) or robust exposures of trans ideology (‘civic discourse’).
There is no pretence here of ‘independent’ regulation by some supposedly neutral body. The unelected, unaccountable, uber-woke European Commission boasts that it will be the direct regulator of Big Tech platforms. It is recruiting more than 100 staff to make sure that no heretical post goes uncancelled.
As ever in debates about freedom of speech, there are two closely-connected issues. Where do you draw the line? And who draws it?
Who will decide whether a post is simply controversial, or ‘disinformation’ that must be removed? Who will rule on whether somebody is just expressing an opinion that some find offensive, or spouting ‘hate speech’ that should be silenced?
Who are these ‘Trusted Flaggers’ that will nominate posts to be censored – and why should we trust them to decide what we can post, see or hear? The Romans asked, “Who watches the watchmen?” We should update that demand. Who checks the fact-checkers? Who flags the flaggers?
Don’t be fooled by the fact that this is not old-fashioned state censorship. The DSA’s system of indirect censorship hands unprecedented legal control of the internet to Big Tech and, behind them, the power of European Commission.
We might not live under the jackbooted tyranny of a Big Brother regime. But make no mistake, Big Brussels is Watching You.
Don’t take my word for it—listen to what they say about themselves. European Commissioner Thierry Bretton recently jetted into Silicon Valley to lecture Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk about the need to comply with the EU’s new rules. The Commissioner declared (“in the manner of King Louis XIV” as Dr. Norman Lewis commented), that “I am the enforcer. I represent the law, which is the will of the state and the people.” We might note that, like the legendary French king, neither the billionaires of Silicon Valley nor the bureaucrats of Brussels have ever won a single vote from ‘the people’ of Europe.
This is an attack not only on free speech but also on democracy. The Commission has Europe’s forthcoming election campaigns in its sights as a prime target for censorship. Commissioner Breton spelt this out in April, protesting that “malicious actors are actively exploiting online platforms to distort the information environment … especially in the run-up to elections.” He highlighted EU concerns about “the hybrid warfare happening on social media” in the run-up to September’s general election in Slovakia, and complained about the shortage of Facebook moderators to help control “the opinion building of the Slovak society”
As reported in The European Conservative, the EU elites want to interfere in the Slovakian elections to try to stop former prime minister Robert Fico and his NATO-critical Smer party from winning power. A former Stalinist who joined the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia only three years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fico may not look like everybody’s idea of a poster-boy for democracy. But Slovak voters should be free to make their own judgement, without the interference of the ‘malicious actors’ of the EU and their authoritarian laws.
And Slovakia is only the start, a test run for the systematic use of the DSA to police online discussion around next year’s elections to the European Parliament. Big Brussels is coming soon to an election theatre near you.
Democratic rights and free speech are always inseparable liberties. Democracy is about choice. How are we to make a reasoned choice without hearing the arguments of all sides, whether offensive to some or not, in an honest, no-holds-barred debate?
Restrictions on free speech attack the very basis of democracy: the idea that people are equal citizens who should be able to decide for themselves. A law such as the DSA reflects the prejudice that ‘ordinary people’ are too ignorant, too easily manipulated by demagogues, to be trusted with important decisions. Instead they are children who need to be guided by their betters in Brussels, told where to go and what to think by Trusted Flaggers, in order to reach the ‘correct’ decision—as decided in advance by the parental European Commission.
You need not be a free speech absolutist (like me) to see the dangers of letting Big Brussels rule the internet. The EU’s Digital Services Act is doing a serious disservice to free speech and democracy. Don’t let them tell us that’s disinformation.
Our new Democracy Watch column will track the battles between the EU elites and the peoples of Europe.
READ NEXT
The Immigration Debate Is Over
Kamala Harris and her ‘Good Vibes’ Campaign
Democrats Wrap Up a Confused Convention