
Who Funds the Defunders? A Closer Look at the Global Disinformation Index
The GDI calls itself “independent”—but if it depends on funding from governments and public institutions like the European Commission, what kind of independence is that?

The GDI calls itself “independent”—but if it depends on funding from governments and public institutions like the European Commission, what kind of independence is that?

When electoral outcomes depend on conformity to approved narratives, voters are no longer citizens exercising constitutional rights—they are just pawns in a supervised process.

A U.S. report has reignited accusations that Brussels crossed from regulation into political control, with critics warning the implications reach far beyond one country.

Documents released by the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee point to systematic intervention by the European Commission to shape political and electoral discourse across several countries.

“It is not the role of government to police the public square or to decide which opinions citizens are allowed to see,” Croatian MEP Stephen Bartulica said.

“It is no longer just about controlling the narrative, but about ensuring electoral outcomes that are compatible with institutional interests.”

In the name of ethics, Brussels is building a regulatory framework that stifles innovation and leaves Europe out of the global technological race.

U.S. lawmakers say the case shows how EU tech rules can be used to pressure foreign platforms—and shape online speech far beyond Europe.

A technical reclassification with far-reaching consequences has drawn WhatsApp into the EU’s most demanding digital rules

The arbiters of acceptable online speech are not nearly as ‘independent’ as the EU would have people believe.