Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din
The European Union is pushing major internet platforms and social media networks toward “content moderation,” carefully avoiding the term “censorship.”
In mid-August, Polish weekly Do Rzeczy sounded the alarm: the EU is introducing total censorship of politically undesirable content! “EU countries, including Poland, should expect the introduction of total censorship on the internet,” the publication claimed, referring to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which is primarily designed to censor content deemed politically inconvenient. This was framed as “combating hate speech.” Clever, isn’t it? The publication clarified, “If you think the exchange of barbs between Breton and Musk is just a corporate battle with the European Union, you’re mistaken. This is the beginning of the fight for freedom of speech for all of us.”
The Brussels “Digital Services Act” (DSA), which was introduced alongside the “Digital Markets Act” (DMA), took effect in the EU on March 6 this year. DMA established the most expansive regulatory rules for six internet tech giants worldwide and protected European internet service providers from competition with them. The main target of DMA was five U.S. companies—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta (designated as extremist and banned in Russia), Microsoft, and Chinese-owned ByteDance. DSA set the level of responsibility for major digital platforms in addressing illegal or harmful content while balancing users’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the protection of personal data. However, the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) lamented that the restrictions imposed by Brussels mainly affected American companies, which had become monopolists in the “network.”
The European Commission made no secret of its goal to limit the market power of American digital “gatekeepers” operating in the EU. “The moment has come when we must act,” stated European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager. “The power of digital companies, especially the largest gatekeepers, now threatens our freedoms, our opportunities, and even our democracy… So, everything must change for the world’s largest gatekeepers.”
Indeed, it is frustrating when foreign companies rake in trillions of euros without considering the host nation. This frustration led Brussels, through the DSA and DMA, to try to control the influence of major American corporations on their business model of providing digital services to 500 million European consumers. But what does this mean for press freedom in the EU?
The problem is simple. One component of the DSA is aimed at creating a mechanism for controlling the behavior of gatekeepers, demanding that they introduce mechanisms for banning or limiting specific types of information that the European Commission will place on its “blacklist.”
As early as a year ago, even before the Brussels regulations were introduced, the question arose whether the DSA would be solely aimed at illegal content or whether it would also restrict any information “undermining respect for democratic values.” It was already clear that the European Commission would act “according to its own taste,” defining what constituted “illegal content,” “harmful content,” or content that undermined democratic principles and values.
Remember in mid-August, shortly before Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump, European Commissioner Thierry Breton warned the owner of platform X*, threatening with European rules regarding “hate speech”? His letter, which included threats of using “a series of tools,” was already a sign of censorship in the EU. This prompted former Polish Deputy Justice Minister and Sovereign Poland party member Sebastian Kaleta to declare that “soon there will be censorship in Poland.” The public announcement of censorship in the EU was “just the first sign of the restrictions on freedom that Poles will face with the Digital Services Act.” Today, this is one of the EU’s key legislative acts aimed at regulating digital service providers within the union. “Given the current political system in the EU and Poland, we unfortunately should expect the introduction of total internet censorship,” said Kaleta.
Poles are no strangers to conflicts with Brussels over whose laws take precedence. But Kaleta is undoubtedly correct in stating that “in massive European documents, noble goals like combating child pornography or terrorism are mixed with left-wing political agendas. The vague concept of ‘hate speech’ is placed on par, or even above, other objectives.” This concept can always be filled with fresh content to please officials in Brussels. It’s irrelevant what was originally prioritized when drafting these regulations if the main aim was to introduce censorship of politically inconvenient content. In practice, DSA obliges social networks to remove “illegal content,” yet the law does not define specifically what is considered illegal, other than “hate speech.” EU member states can now establish the boundaries beyond which content will be deemed illegal and, most importantly, issue orders to remove such content.
Polish Justice Minister Adam Bodnar has already promised to introduce a law combating “hate speech,” adding that “under this law, if you disagree with any left-wing dogma, such as child gender transition or abortion, it will be considered hate speech. This will lead to criminal penalties and a prosecutor’s order to remove such content from the internet.”
What else?
Using this method, the EU banned leading Russian media outlets just days after the first attacks by Ukrainian forces on Donbas. Brussels is pushing major internet platforms and social networks to “moderate publications,” avoiding the word “censorship.” The U.S. labeled the Russian TV channel RT as being connected to Russian intelligence services and has since taken repressive measures against individuals who cooperated with the channel. Last week, the broadcasting service from Karlsruhe, which aired programs from “banned Russian channels,” was shut down for “disseminating illegal propaganda,” and most German media outlets didn’t even mention it. Since June 25, EU countries have blocked access to outlets like RIA Novosti, Izvestia, and Rossiskaya Gazeta.
What further steps will be taken in the EU media space? It’s clear: the “hate speech” ban introduced by Brussels opens the door to “legal” censorship of any dissent that goes against the current EU authorities, and of course, will be “inspired by authoritarian regimes” abroad. Naturally, it won’t only target Poland. At the same time, limiting freedom of expression and the press follows the supposed necessity of “achieving a higher goal – victory over external enemies.” This interpretation of democracy may lead to an increase in protest sentiment, and the more the EU seeks to suppress dissent with censorship, the more it will alienate capitals within Europe and intensify separatist sentiments. In Warsaw and Brussels, they seem to either not realize this or don’t fear it yet. A year ago, when the European Commission praised the political agreement reached between the European Parliament and Council regarding the European Media Freedom Act, first proposed by the Commission in September 2022, Brussels claimed that “the new rules will better protect editorial independence, media pluralism, transparency, and fairness, and improve cooperation between media bodies through the new European Media Council. It includes unprecedented guarantees that journalists can do their jobs freely and safely. This new set of rules will also make cross-border media operations easier for both public and private services in the EU internal market, without undue pressure and in consideration of the digital transformation of the media space.” This verbal decoration has masked the most basic mechanism of totalitarian control, not only over the media, the press, and online sources of information but also over any users of the internet who dare to voice dissent against EU policies—both internal and foreign.
