Under the guise of “protecting democracy” the , in recent times, promotes a s that have direct effects, both on the freedom of speech, and on the protection of the privacy of citizens on the Internet.
As European citizens show growing distrust of Brussels bureaucracy, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen appears determined to turn the EU internet into a tightly controlled environment where any criticism of politicians, policies and institutions can have unpredictable consequences.
In general, in the West, which is supposed to defend the right of citizens to free expression and the unhindered circulation of ideas, there have recently been recorded thousands of cases of citizens being taken to court for writing something inappropriate on the Internet.
The situation has spiraled out of control, particularly in countries such as Britain and Germany, where thousands of internet users have been slapped with hefty fines or even prison terms for commenting on social media or criticizing certain politicians.
Some time ago, we reported on the EU’s attempt to end citizens’ right to privacy by introducing a law that would force social networks to “scan” private messages between users, while at the same time enabling the competent authorities of member countries to access these messages.
Germany’s decision to vote against this particular bill at the last minute prevented its passage, but the Danish Presidency is determined to bring it back to a vote in December, before Cyprus takes over the Presidency.
The fine in X
On December 5, X (formerly Twitter) was fined €120m ($140m), the first fine imposed on a social network under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which comes into effect in 2023 and is supposed to regulate major platforms to protect users.
Officially, the Commission justified the fine, referring to three violations of the law, which X allegedly committed: misleading user identification system, opacity in advertisements and denial of access to the content of the platform to researchers.
But everyone knows that the Commission simply wants to limit the freedom of speech of X users, as the criticism leveled at the Brussels bureaucracy, on this particular platform, is often very harsh. One only has to read the comments under von der Leyen’s posts, as well as those of other European officials, to understand why Brussels is not happy with X.
The announcement of the fine was made by US officials of the Trump administration. Vice President J. D. Vance wrote to X: “The fine was imposed because X refuses to censor. The EU should be supporting freedom of speech and not attacking American companies for trivial reasons.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made similar statements.
It should be noted that TikTok was also threatened with a fine by the EU, for similar reasons, but in this case, no fine was finally imposed, as the network gave a vague promise to comply with the Commission’s instructions. The bottom line is that anyone who complies with the Commission’s instructions gets away with it, anyone who doesn’t is forced to pay exorbitant amounts.
The whole case has once again brought to the fore the growing rift between Washington and Brussels in the governance of the digital world. While the EU sees the internet as an environment to be policed, the US – at least the Trump administration – as a space where free speech should be protected.
Many analysts expect renewed US pressure in trade negotiations with the EU and faster technological decoupling between the US and Europe.
And Europeans are left with the question: does the DSA law protect citizens or political power? And what good is it for Brussels to play the role of digital sheriff at a time when European tech start-ups are collapsing under the costs of complying with draconian regulations?
Europe is fighting for control over an ecosystem it did not build, at a time when its contribution to global innovation is shrinking. The case of the fine in X is not only about this particular platform, but about the future of the open Internet. Europe wanted to send a message to the US. Instead, he started a transatlantic “war”, which he has no means of defeating.
Shield of Democracy
As if all this were not enough, Brussels announced some time ago, an initiative entitled “European Democracy Shield”, which on paper aims to protect citizens, “free elections” and “vibrant civil society”.
But, as many analysts say, this initiative is still a vision of unfreedom, aimed at suppressing dissent and policing speech, under the guise of “protecting democracy from foreign interference and fake news.”
As part of the Shield of Democracy, the Commission proposes the creation of a Monitoring Center, which will identify and remove “false content” and “disinformation” from the internet.
A new “independent European fact-checking network” will be created in all official EU languages, while the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), Europe’s leading fact-checking network, funded with nearly €30 million, will gain new “independent” analytical powers to monitor elections and crises.
Of course in Brussels, “independence” means financial dependence on the Commission. So in order to ensure the independence of this Monitoring Centre, the Commission promises generous funding to “independent” NGOs.
In theory, these initiatives are meant to protect democracy, but in practice, they do the opposite. Their purpose is not to “fight disinformation,” as they claim, but to control the narrative, at a time when Europe’s political elites face unprecedented public distrust — centralizing control of information and imposing a single “truth,” defined by Brussels.
In short, the European Commission is building a pan-European censorship machine.
In short, the Commission is leading the Union down a slippery slope, where reaction, criticism and dissent are increasingly suffocated and the Internet risks transforming into a “digital Gulag”, where privacy and the free flow of ideas will be romantic relics of the past.
