Tag: censorship

European Union Unveils International Strategy Pushing Digital ID Systems and Online Censorship

As part of a broader campaign to expand its global influence in the digital era, the European Union has introduced a sweeping International Digital Strategy that leans heavily on centralized infrastructure, digital identity systems, and regulatory frameworks that raise significant questions about online freedoms and privacy.

The European Commission, in announcing the initiative, stressed its intent to collaborate with foreign governments on a range of areas, prominently featuring digital identity systems and what it calls “Digital Public Infrastructure.”

These frameworks, which have garnered widespread support from transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, are being marketed as tools to streamline cross-border commerce and improve mobility.

However, for privacy advocates, the strategy raises red flags due to its promotion of interoperable digital ID programs and a surveillance-oriented model of governance under the guise of efficiency.

According to the strategy documents, one of the EU’s objectives is to drive mutual recognition of electronic trust services, including digital IDs, across partner nations such as Ukraine, Moldova, and several Balkan and Latin American countries. This aligns with the EU’s ambitions to propagate its model of the Digital Identity Wallet, an initiative that privacy campaigners warn could entrench government control over personal data.

The strategy also outlines measures to deepen cooperation on global digital regulation, including laws that govern online speech.

While framed as promoting “freedom of expression, democracy, and citizens’ privacy,” these efforts are closely tied to the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates extensive platform compliance and systemic risk monitoring.

Keep reading

Irish Government Admits No Free Speech Impact Assessment for “Misinformation” Laws

Irish authorities have moved ahead with extensive legislation aimed at tackling “misinformation,” yet they have not examined whether such measures might undermine free expression. The Department responsible for communications, media, and environmental policy has acknowledged that no analysis has been carried out to assess the consequences for free speech.

Responding to a media query from Gript, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications plainly admitted: “The Department has not undertaken any analysis or research on the potential impact of mis/disinformation laws on free speech.”

Despite this lack of evaluation, the government continues to defend its strategy. Speaking outside Government Buildings, Taoiseach (Prime Minster) Micheál Martin insisted the effort to curb online falsehoods is justified, arguing that some speech doesn’t merit protection. “It’s not freedom of speech, really, when it’s just a blatant lie and untruth, which can create a lot of public disquiet, as we have seen,” he said.

Martin downplayed the idea that regulating disinformation represents any serious threat to expressive freedoms, stating: “There are very strong protections in our constitution and in our laws and freedom of speech.” He added, “I wouldn’t overstate the impact on clamping down on blatant lies online as a sort of incursion or an undermining of freedom of speech.”

When pressed on whether the absence of impact studies was irresponsible, Martin referenced a recent RTÉ radio segment about social media claims related to a shooting in Carlow. “There was a researcher on identifying the blatant misinformation on truths and lies surrounding what happened in Carlow,” he said. “So I do think it’s absolutely important that government focuses on this issue.”

Keep reading

State criminalizes political memes, gets sued by popular satire site

The Babylon Bee, a popular satire website, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii challenging a state law that censors online content, “including political satire and parody.”

An announcement from the ADF, which is representing the publication as well as a Hawaii resident in the case, said, “The law violates fundamental free speech and due process rights by using vague and overbroad standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians.”

The ADF explained Gov. Josh Green signed S2687 into law in July 2024, and it bans the distribution of “materially deceptive media” that portrays politicians in a way that risks harming “the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate.”

Further, the state forces satire artists to post disclaimers, destroying the purpose of satire.

“Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire is censorship, pure and simple,” said ADF lawyer Mathew Hoffmann. “Satire has served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile for centuries, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn’t allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable, and we are urging the court to cancel this unnecessary censorship.”

Seth Dillon, chief of the Bee, said, “We’re used to getting pulled over by the joke police, but comedy isn’t a crime. The First Amendment protects our right to tell jokes, whether it’s election season or not. We’ll never stop fighting to defend that freedom.”

Keep reading

France Just Redefined Global Speech on TikTok

TikTok’s decision to block the “SkinnyTok” hashtag across its entire platform followed direct intervention from the French government, revealing how national pressure is increasingly shaping global online speech, even when the content in question is not illegal.

French Digital Minister Clara Chappaz just claimed victory, celebrating the platform’s removal of the term often associated with extreme dieting and weight loss trends. “This is a first collective victory,” she wrote on X after TikTok confirmed the ban was now global.

A spokesperson for the platform stated the hashtag was removed as part of ongoing safety reviews and due to its“link to “unhealthy weight loss content.”

While the move has been portrayed as a step forward for user safety, particularly for young audiences, it also raises deeper concerns about the role of governments in controlling speech on private platforms.

The “SkinnyTok” content, though considered by some to be harmful, does not violate any laws. Still, the French government managed to pressure TikTok into removing it worldwide. This maneuver highlights a growing trend in which authorities seek to influence online content standards beyond their own borders, often using platforms as enforcers.

Rather than work through the European Commission or wait for outcomes from the ongoing investigation under the Digital Services Act (DSA), France chose to confront TikTok directly.

Keep reading

BlueSky Is Just Another Weapon in Big Tech’s War Against Truth

Remember when Jack Dorsey left Twitter, claimed he had “seen the light,” and launched Blue Sky to “decentralize social media”? Yeah, turns out that was just another bait-and-switch by Big Tech’s elite. The same Silicon Valley players who censored the truth about COVID, vaccines, election fraud, and even the gospel, are now peddling “decentralization” like a cheap used car.

But here’s the reality: Blue Sky is a centralized con disguised as a digital rebellion.

On The Andres Segovia Show, @theandressegovia laid it bare: “This is the place I’ve received the most threats on any platform.” That includes X, Gab, even Instagram. But on Blue Sky? Threats. Not criticism. Not trolling. Threats. And the accounts issuing them? Still up. That tells you everything you need to know about how this platform operates.

Now enter @YossiShow—he tested the app, documented 37 screenshots, filed 9 reports on pornographic content, and was met with radio silence. “Ghosted my April 15th and 17th emails,” he said. Zero accountability. Zero action. But the most important quote? “Blue Sky’s a free speech fraud. Vague rules, ignored threats, rampant porn. They dodge accountability… Transparency is key, they’re allergic.”

Let’s cut to the chase. This isn’t about broken code or lazy developers. This is about control. Blue Sky doesn’t want to be a free speech platform. They want to appear to be one—just enough to bait the disillusioned and funnel us back into the surveillance state. They’re pulling from the same playbook we’ve seen over and over again: promise liberty, deliver tyranny.

Keep reading

J.D. Vance Was Right About Censorship

In February 2025, U.S. Vice President, JD Vance stood before the Munich Security Conference and delivered a stark warning. Europe’s greatest threat was not external aggression, but internal decay — specifically, the erosion of free speech.

At the time, his words were met with scorn from European elites, dismissed as populist provocation — even “misinformation”. Yet, just months later, the cultural tide is turning. The May 2025 edition of the Economist is entirely devoted to exposing Europe’s censorship crisis, with the cover piece subtitled “J.D. Vance was right”. Key members of the UK’s previous Conservative government, responsible for implementing various censorship laws in Britain, have now found a voice to call for free speech. In a few short months, the zeitgeist has shifted: we now see that Vance’s critique was not only timely, but prescient.

Vance highlighted the case of Adam Smith-Connor, a British army veteran convicted for the “crime” of silently praying near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Smith-Connor stood alone, for 3 minutes, across a road from the facility in a green public space — prayerfully remembering a child he had lost through abortion. He obstructed no one, spoke to no one, yet was prosecuted under a “buffer zone” law designed to prevent harassment, abuse, and “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion within the large public area. He was sentenced to a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £9,000 in prosecution costs.

This case is not isolated. Livia Tossici-Bolt, also from Bournemouth, was convicted for offering consensual conversations near an abortion facility. Her “crime”? Holding a sign reading “here to talk, if you want” in the area. Inviting consensual conversation. She was ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs.

Similar cases have arisen in Birmingham and in Scotland, where citizens have been prosecuted just for holding a certain point of view on abortion near a clinic or hospital, and either praying, or simply being willing to talk if someone wants to engage with them.

Vance’s speech, derided by European elites at the time, resonates with a public that is increasingly frustrated with their taxes going towards silencing themselves.

Keep reading

EU Tech Laws Erect Digital Iron Curtain

Over the past decades, Europe has created little of real relevance in terms of technological platforms, social networks, operating systems, or search engines.

In contrast, it has built an extensive regulatory apparatus designed to limit and punish those who have actually innovated.

Rather than producing its own alternatives to American tech giants, the EU has chosen to suffocate existing ones through regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DSA aims to control the content and internal functioning of digital platforms, requiring the rapid removal of content deemed “inappropriate” in what amounts to a modern form of censorship, as well as the disclosure of how algorithms work and restrictions on targeted advertising. The DMA, in turn, seeks to curtail the power of so-called gatekeepers by forcing companies like Apple, Google, or Meta to open their systems to competitors, avoid self-preferencing, and separate data flows between products.

These two regulations could potentially have a greater impact on U.S. tech companies than any domestic legislation, as they are rules made in Brussels but applied to American companies in an extraterritorial manner. And they go far beyond fines: they force structural changes to the design of systems and functionalities, something that no sovereign state should be imposing on foreign private enterprise.

In April 2025, Meta was fined €200 million under the Digital Markets Act for allegedly imposing a “consent or pay” model on European users of Facebook and Instagram, without offering a real alternative. Beyond the fine, it was forced to separate data flows between platforms, thereby compromising the personalized advertising system that sustains its profitability. This was a blatant interference in its business model.

That same month, Apple was fined €500 million for preventing platforms like Spotify from informing users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store. The company was required to remove these restrictions, opening iOS to external app stores and competing payment systems. Once again, this was an unwelcome intrusion and a direct attack on the exclusivity-based model of the Apple ecosystem.

Other companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and even X are also under scrutiny, with the latter particularly affected by DSA rules, having been the target of a formal investigation in 2023 for alleged noncompliance in content moderation.

Keep reading

Is This Stunning Censorship A Glimpse Into Our Own Future?

The BBC has reported on smartphones smuggled out of North Korea that are setup to spy on citizens and prevent them from using language that is not authorised by the Communist state.

Instead of simply not allowing North Korean people to have such devices, the regime there has decided to manufacture and distribute phones as a tool for further controlling the population amid fears that freedom, in the form of South Korean culture, is encroaching.

The BBC reporter demonstrates how the phone edits words and phrases that are are not acceptable to the North Korean government, and replaces them with language they have sanctioned.

In one example, the reporter types in a South Korean slang word for “boyfriend” and the phone changes it to “comrade.”

A second example shows the reporter typing in ‘South Korea’ and the phone automatically changing it to “Puppet State.”

The phone also covertly takes a screenshot every five minutes, stores the images in a secret folder which the user cannot access, but North Korean authorities can scour through should they wish to do so.

The report also notes that the North Korean Communists have deployed “youth crackdown squads” to patrol the streets listening out for people using South Korean slang or styles of language.

Wild stuff.

“Smartphones are now part and parcel of the way North Korea tries to indoctrinate people,” Martyn Williams, a senior fellow at the Washington DC-based Stimson Center, and an expert in North Korean technology and information, told the BBC.

Williams further noted that North Korea is now “starting to gain the upper hand” in the information war.

Some online pointed out that its ironic that the state funded BBC filed this report, given that people in the UK are being imprisoned over social media posts.

Keep reading

Marco Rubio Says ‘Vigorous New Visa Policy’ Will Prevent Israel Critics From Entering the US

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday that the US was implementing a “vigorous new visa policy” to prevent people from entering the US who are critical of Israel, which he conflates with antisemitism.

“We have implemented a vigorous new visa policy that will prevent foreign nationals from coming to the United States to foment hatred against our Jewish community,” Rubio said in a recorded video message to an Israeli conference on “combating antisemitism.”

Rubio said that the US will hold “international organizations and nations accountable for rhetoric against Israel.”

The Trump administration recently paused all interviews for foreigners seeking student visas as it prepares to expand vetting and screening of social media.

The Trump administration has been attempting to deport foreign students for protesting against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, activism that US officials have labeled “antisemitic” despite Jewish involvement in the demonstrations.

In one case, Rubio revoked the visa of a PhD student at Tufts University, Rumeysa Ozturk, for co-authoring an op-ed that called for her school to divest from Israeli companies. Ozturk was recently released after six weeks of detention and continues to fight against her deportation.

In a seemingly contradictory move, Rubio also announced a new policy to prevent foreign nationals who have been involved in censoring the speech of Americans from obtaining visas.

Keep reading

EU Commissioner Defends EU’s Censorship Law While Downplaying Brussels’ Indirect Influence Over Online Speech

As the European Union moves aggressively to shape online discourse through the Digital Services Act (DSA), EU Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen has been deflecting scrutiny abroad, pointing fingers at the United States for what she describes as a more extensive censorship regime.

Relying on transparency data, she argues that platforms like Meta and X primarily remove content based on their own terms and conditions rather than due to DSA directives. But this framing misrepresents how enforcement works in practice, and downplays the EU’s systemic role in pushing platforms toward silence through legal design, not open decrees.

Virkkunen highlighted that between September 2023 and April 2024, 99 percent of content takedowns occurred under platform terms of service, with only 1 percent resulting from “trusted flaggers” authorized under the DSA. A mere 0.001 percent were direct orders from state authorities.

On paper, this paints a picture of platform autonomy. But in reality, the architecture of the DSA ensures that removals appear “voluntary” precisely because they are incentivized by looming regulatory consequences.

Under the DSA, platforms are held legally accountable for failing to remove certain types of content.

This liability drives a strong incentive to err on the side of over-removal, creating a culture where companies preemptively censor to minimize risk. Virkkunen frames these decisions as internal, but in truth, many of them reflect anticipatory compliance with European legal expectations.

The fact that content is flagged and removed “under T&Cs” does not indicate independence, it reflects a strategy of risk avoidance in response to EU enforcement pressure.

This dynamic is by design. The DSA doesn’t rely on high numbers of direct takedown orders from governments. Instead, it outsources content control to the platforms themselves, embedding speech restrictions in the guise of corporate policy.

The regulatory burden falls on private actors, but the agenda is shaped by Brussels. Delegating enforcement doesn’t dilute state influence; it conceals it. The veneer of decentralization does not remove the fact that the state has created the framework and exerts ongoing leverage over what platforms consider acceptable.

Keep reading