Large platforms like X, Facebook and Instagram are now required to be compliant with the EU’s draconian Digital Services Act censorship law, which appears set to become the global standard and enable the European Commission to censor the internet. Dr. Normal Lewis writes about the seemingly unstoppable reforms in Spiked.
Not many people know that November 16th 2022 was the day that freedom of speech died on the internet. This was the day the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) came into law. Under the DSA, very large online platforms (VLOPs) with more than 45 million monthly active users – like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram – will have to swiftly remove illegal content, hate speech and so-called disinformation from their platforms. Or they will face fines of up to 6% of their annual global revenue. Larger platforms must be DSA compliant by this summer, while smaller platforms will be obliged to tackle this content from 2024 onwards.
The ramifications of this are immense. Not only will the DSA now enforce the regulation of content on the internet for the first time, but it is also set to become a global standard, not just a European one.
In recent years, the EU has largely realised its ambition to become a global regulatory superpower. The EU can dictate how any company worldwide must behave if it wants to operate in Europe, the world’s second-largest market. As a result, its strict regulatory standards often end up being adopted worldwide by both firms and other regulators, in what is known as the ‘Brussels effect’. Take the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a privacy law which came into force in May 2018. Among many other things, it requires individuals to give explicit consent before their data can be processed. These EU regulations have since become the global standard, and the same could now happen for the DSA.
The EU’s enforcement of GDPR has been somewhat tentative. It has issued only about €1.7 billion in penalties since 2018, according to the Economist, which is peanuts in an industry that generates more than a trillion euros in revenue annually. But the EU seems to have learnt from this: the DSA has enormous enforcement capabilities built into it. The European Commission expects its internal industry watchdog to have over 100 full-time staff by 2024. Plus, contract workers and national experts will be expected to supervise Big Tech’s operations, too. It amounts to what EU internal-markets commissioner Thierry Breton calls a “historic moment in digital regulation”. The VLOPS are expected to fund this enforcement operation themselves, paying up to 0.05% of their global annual turnover each year to the Commission.
This gives the EU an extraordinary amount of power. The regulation of the DSA will be overseen by the Commission itself, not an independent regulator. What’s more, the DSA includes a “crisis-management mechanism”, added last year in a last-minute amendment. The Commission argued it needs to be able to direct how platforms respond to events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently, in a crisis, the “anticipatory or voluntary nature” of obligations on tech companies to tackle disinformation would be insufficient. Under the DSA, the Commission has given itself the power to determine whether such a “crisis” exists, defined as “an objective risk of serious prejudice to public security or public health in the Union”. Given the EU’s willingness to weaponise the ‘rule of law’ against its ideological opponents, such as Poland and Hungary, the potential this gives the EU to abuse this mechanism is worrying indeed.
Not only does this give the EU immense powers for censorship, it also represents a profound technocratic evasion of democratic accountability. The unelected European Commission is forcing Big Tech to police the internet to rein in what the EU deems to be unacceptable speech or disinformation. In so doing, the Commission has empowered itself to impose its values on the rest of us. If this draconian censorship were being enforced by a national government, we would at least be able to vote it out. But this is an altogether different scenario.
Depressing stuff. Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Wow. 1984, here we come!
I think we waved goodbye to 1984 in our rear-view mirror about a decade ago. We’ve been in unchartered territory ever since and the portents don’t look good.
Quite so. But unlike the Orwellian blueprint, they have used the subtlest means of oppression, well aware that even a smidgen of fear or misgiving can affect ten thousand decisions. Instead of torturing dissidents to death then, they de-bank them; they shadow-ban them; they block their promotion, they get them sacked, they change everything and accuse those with the temerity to notice of “stoking culture wars”, and yet they are stepping things up, that is for certain.
And whether or not they will stoop to the bludgeon and the heresy trial is a moot point. Oppression can only get so far by subtle means, especially when sufficient numbers have noticed it. With a critical mass of critics you get resistance and the regime is then presented with a choice – go on, which means blood; stand still or collapse. I don’t think we can rely on these people to make choice number three.
Only if we allow it!
At the other end of the power hierarchy, I suspect there is already a subtle tactic to suppress dissent. I give personal example, though I am sure there are many other cases, many much more serious than my own.
I was invited to contribute to a book which had nothing directly to do with any woke issues. My chapter was broadly accepted by the editor, subject to removal of some side-swipes that I had made which were not directly on the book’s theme. For example, I alluded to the pressure that teachers feel to teach “climate change” as “settled science” and critical race theory as unchallengeable. I agreed to remove the offending items, as they were not critical to the message of my chapter or the book. During discussions, it became apparent that the editor, from academic circles, was in turn under pressure not to allow “off-message” material to appear in the book, no matter how oblique the reference. In essence, the debate, friendly though it was, got down to disagreement some issue was “settled” or “contentious”. I was surprised a the editor’s lack of awareness of just how many issues are “settled” in academia but “contentious” or even “ridiculed” by a portion of the general public. It wasn’t a big issue for me, and hardly life-changing: I never felt threatened with being cancelled, de-banked or fired if I made a fuss. However, now I guess that this sort of “nudge” goes on in thousands of other situations where editors and authors debate what thoughts and language are these days “permissible” in print, and the role of neurolinguistic programming in imposing an agenda. Perhaps the “Long March Through The Institutions” takes place by innumerable nudges between the ground forces, rather than by a single major legislative coup by a national or supra-national organisation?
This is it. You have described the process very clearly. It is like the continual, lapping encroachment of a tide, rather than a sudden, cataclysmic tidal wave. But we still drown, don’t we?
It’s also known as “boiling the frog.”
They should withdraw their services from Europe. The backlash will
be something to witness.
Freiendface has withdrawn news services in Canadia because of insane WEF backed legislation – Trudeau is making them out to be the bad guys.
That may be exactly what the EU wants and to introduce their own platforms.
But sadly it won’t happen.
Nice typo, Will. Or was it intentional that you named the author of the piece “Dr Normal”?
So tell me the advantages the EU has over Russia at the moment, vis a vis free speech.
Fortunately, the UK is not in the EU; or is it?
We have one leg in and one leg out.
And our balls are in their grasp
I suspect that a fight is coming, and it won’t be pleasant.
I’m agin it, and I won’t change my mind. A surprising number of people agree with me but none of us are sure of how to resist to best effect.
Watch this space.
Really?
I doubt that very much.
Did we get a chance to vote out masks? Lickdowns? Vax passports? Net zero? Censorship laws in Britain?
We don’t get a chance to vote out anything that actually matters to us.
That was the object of the whole exercise.
That and amassing obscene profits, obviously.
But Glowbull Warming was obviously not occurring as fast as predicted and they had already had to reduce 2°C Doom to 1.5°C Doom to keep the Nudge Pressure up.
Gates, Fauci, Soros, Farrar, Schwab, Charles III, Obama, the ÈC and all the rest needed to explore the best way to extend their power and their profits and to try thinning out “useless eaters”.
Voilà!
The world’s most trusted media are Singapore’s and China’s.
Both publish their censorship rules.
Both name the individual responsible for applying the rules.
That individual must explain unpopular bans.
“Controlling information through intimidation and explicit controls saps government credibility and makes rumors spread more readily, thus creating ever more work for busy censors”. He Qinglian, Media Control in China.
The following rules apply to every Chinese (more stringent rules apply to anyone with over five thousand social media followers):
No infringing, fake accounts, libel, disclosing trade secrets, or invading privacy;
No sending porn to attract users;
No torture, violence, killing of people or animals;
No selling lethal weapons, gambling, phishing, scamming, or spreading viruses;
No organizing crime, counterfeiting, false advertising, empty promises or bullying;
No lotteries, rumor-mongering, promoting superstitions;
No content opposing the basic principles of the Constitution, national unity, sovereignty, or territorial integrity;
No divulging State secrets or endangering national security.
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/governing-the-e-cosystem-2/#comment-44646
The EU may have this law but if the platforms simply don’t have any physical presence in Europe (which is to a large extent the case already) then how can these rules be operated? The only way is to attack the EU service provider companies, and if they do that there will be no internet in Europe. An American company will never pay the EU anything, but probably will start a trade war with Europe. Is that sensible, because the EU will lose? The Globalist idiots do not appear to understand that they are not in the necessary position of power to implement something like this. It all comes down to understanding of internet technology, the EU clearly don’t have any.
I do hope you’re correct. I really do.
The EU is a doomed and failing empire. Nobody has EVER defeated the general public.
This is textbook manipulation by the EU, (and a nice little earner in fines.) “If this draconian censorship were being enforced by a national government, we would at least be able to vote it out. But this is an altogether different scenario.” And some people still ask me why I campaigned and voted for Brexit.
” If this draconian censorship were being enforced by a national government, we would at least be able to vote it out. But this is an altogether different scenario.”
————-
That’s precisely the reason why the EU was created. Jean-Claude Juncker spelled it out very clearly for us:
“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re–elected once we have done it.”
So the EU has been created to be above democratic control.
And I can comment on this as well but not on the article about Denmark banning the burning of the Quran. Again why?
Looks as though we are screwed!
Will they still be selling poppies on November 11th? Jeez, what was the point? All those lives.
Has anyone noticed an issue with trying to post on the article next to this one about Denmark and book burning? When I go into the article the little box for posting a comment is not appearing.
I’ve just had a look and can confirm that I can’t see any option to post comments or replies on the article you mention. So it’s an issue with that article rather than you (or else it’s an issue with both of us LOL)
Global Tyranny one step at a time. People are like frogs put in cold water where the temperature rises slowly and the frog doesn’t notice but ends up being boiled slowly. Liberal Progressives do the same thing bit by bit. ——-Doesn’t being progressive sound so nice? Yes but Progressing to what? ——–More and more and more government control . ….
“ Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty,”
1. Detect whether your site is being accessed from within the EU
2. If so require a login
3. Limit the number of EU users to 85% of the EU population
You are now not a VLOP so problem solved