The Control of Information.

How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown

Europe and its information control tactics – part 2.

“There is no room for firewalls.” JD Vance, Vice-President of the USA, on 13 February 2025 at the Munich Security Conference.

The Digital Services Act 2022 – introduction.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) legalises censorship in the European Union, subcontracting censorship activities to those who operate in the digital space, including those who operate platforms with over 45 million users per month. These are named as Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSE) such as Google, and Very Large Online Platforms (VLOP) such as Meta and X. These are the operators that have the most obligations and duties under the DSA, they are subject to large penalties for non-compliance, and they are most pertinent to my investigations into the fact check industry. According to the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) website, the DSA will ‘impose massive fines on American tech companies that fail to comply with the draconian requirements to curb disfavoured speech’ [1] here.

Why was this Act passed into law?

According to cyber expert and media freedom researcher Mike Benz, US politicians are restricted in the manner in which they can censor the speech and activities of the US citizens, because of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Due to these restrictions, the US concentrated on getting censorship legislation passed in other countries, putting pressure on them to enact such legislation. According to Benz, it is the intention of the DSA to control and curb American companies [2] here.

The American focus was on influencing other countries to pass legislation that would affect American corporations with a digital presence, as American politicians were unable to enact legislation that would allow government interference in freedoms. An investigation by the FFO found that 10 US government funded organisations signed the EU’s Code of Practice, 20% of its signatories. A further 13 organisations including news agencies, non-profits, analytics companies, and universities are involved through its network of digital observatories [3] here. These US-government-funded organisations are from America, UK, and parts of Europe. The digital observatories described above will be further analysed in the next posting of The Control of Information.

DSA signatories with US funding are listed below:

· Newsguard, (US), $750,000 from the Department of Defence (DoD) in 2021

· Global Disinformation Index, (UK) from $100,000 via the now-closed down Global Engagement Center (GEC) and $230,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

· GLOBSEC (Slovakia) $418,226 from the US Dept. of State (also partners with NED and the Atlantic Council that may also provide funds).

· CEE Digital Democracy Watch (Poland) $900,000 from the US Agency for Development (USAID).

· Debunk EU (Lithuania) $224,744 from State Department.

· Demogog (Poland) $100,00 grant from State Department.

· Baltica (Latvia) $25,311 grant from State Department.

· Reporters Without Borders (RSF) funded by the NED – it is not disclosed how much money RSF has received.

· Maldita (Spain) undisclosed funding from NED and Internews (Internews is funded by USAID).

· Logically AI (Ireland, UK and India) $99,000 from Dept of State.

The FFO website has further information on these organisations [4] here. The thirteen organisations that have received US funding and are enforcers of EU censorship policies though their participation in the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) will be investigated in the next Control of Information report.

These 23 organizations have collectively received at least $15,444,695 in US government grants and awards [5] here. Hence, the passing of the DSA in Europe, and the very similar Online Safety Act (OSA) in UK, has become a backdoor means of censoring information that American citizens receive in the USA. Although the American government cannot interfere with free speech of American citizens because of the First Amendment, this same restriction does not apply to other governments or entities who can legally interfere with American’s free expression and censor the information that they receive.

What does the EU say about the DSA?

The EU cannot openly state that the DSA is to censor speech but has to cloak its requirements in protection of citizens, and to ensure fairness across EU countries. In the words of the EU, the DSA and the Digital Market Act (DMA) form a single set of rules that apply across the whole EU, with two main goals:

1. To create a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected

2. To establish a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness, both in the European Single Market and globally [6] here.

Like the OSA in the UK, the DSA is therefore put forward as a protection for EU citizens, with an emphasis on protecting the vulnerable, naming children, minorities, and ‘gender’.

Criticism of the DSA.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a positive feature of the DSA is that it strengthens users’ right to online anonymity and private communication (Article 7). However, the EFF states that disturbingly, this Act lets government agencies order a broad range of providers to remove allegedly illegal content (Article 8). Another provision allows governments alarming powers to uncover data about anonymous speakers without adequate procedural safeguards (Article 9). Finally, a new mechanism gives special privilege to “trusted flaggers” of content, which can also include law enforcement agencies [7] here. This can interfere with the democratic process, for example, a report by Big Brother Watch (BBW), revealed that trusted flagger status was abused by the UK government who removed legitimate voices of academics, members of parliament, and journalists from social media platforms because of criticism of government policy [8] here.

Article 8 empowers national judicial or administrative authorities to directly issue mandatory takedown orders. The Civil Liberties Committee amongst others lobbied to limit these powers to independent courts. Instead, Parliament followed the Commission’s proposal and allowed a broad category of non-independent authorities to exercise this power, despite the reality that taking down user communication is a highly intrusive act that interferes with the right to privacy and threatens the foundation of a democratic society. Judicial authorities are best able to determine with certainty that the material at issue is unlawful. By contrast, non-independent administrative authorities are under the supervision of executive political power and don’t necessarily consider the legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the protection of their fundamental rights [9] here. The same authorities can demand social media companies to provide information about individuals using their platforms.

DSA protected areas.

The DSA offers protection in five areas [10] here:

1. Illegal products.

2. Illegal content. This is named as Russian propaganda, interference with elections, hate crimes and online harms including harassment and child abuse.

3. Protection of children.

4. Protection of racial and gender diversity.

5. Ban on ‘dark patterns’, such as manipulating people to subscribe or buy something that they would not have done without such tactics.

Some of these protected areas have value, such as the online sale of online guns and narcotics, and interference with elections to the point where the election gives an unfair result. Children are vulnerable to exploitation from sexual predators, bullying and many other threats. But there are issues around these categories that are concerning.

All governments use propaganda, now redefined as public relations in Europe, yet Russian propaganda is specifically targeted. This makes drawing a line problematical, for example, the report by the renowned journalist Seymour Hersch into the Nord Stream2 countered the American version of events, which had blamed Russia for blowing up of this pipeline [11] here. The version of events by Hersch is more credible, but it was at the time described as ‘Russian propaganda’ and could have been removed by mandate. The notion of ‘online harms’ could include forced removal of the accurate postings of people describing their own vaccine injuries, as it was during the roll out of Covid vaccines [12] here. The protection of children means that users of social media now have to offer proof of their identity, making it impossible for social media users to remain anonymous, as the DSA claims. This protection could ban posts that describe the effects of gender affirming care, including mutilating surgery and pharmaceuticals, as children are given the strange right to decide their gender at a young age in some jurisdictions [13] here. The DSA requirements could ban posts that described possible side effects of childhood vaccines, even if these are accurate [14] here.

The protection of the rights of Asians and transgender women could, and sometimes does, interfere with the rights of white people and women [15] here and [16] here. Election interference is always difficult to define, as lobbying, electioneering, and giving an opinion on preferences inevitably occurs throughout the election season. Concern is only expressed when the possible outcome challenges existing power structures. For example, the interference of the USA in Italian elections in 1948 is well documented [17] here. In 2025, the Romanian election was cancelled when a ‘populist’ candidate who wanted Romania to retain neutrality in the Russia/West conflict was likely to win the vote [18]here. As the candidate was described in some arenas as ‘pro-Russian’ rather than a ‘Romania First’ candidate, hearing his side of these events on social media platforms could be banned under current DSA legislation.

Penalties for non-compliance.

The DSA date of applicability was 24 February 2024, with VLOP and VLOSE given 4 months from that date in order to comply with DSA requirements.

When the European Commission has information concerning infringement of DSA requirements they open proceedings. This may lead to a non-compliance decision. If EU officials decide that the issue is urgent they can impose interim measures. This includes increased monitoring of keywords or hashtags, or orders to terminate or remedy infringements.

The Commission’s enforcement powers include sending a request for information (RFI), ordering access to algorithm/recommender systems of a platform, conduct interviews with any person who may have information, and it can also conduct inspections of the VLOP’s premises. At this point, fines of up to 1% of the world annual turnover can be imposed, plus periodic penalties of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover imposed for each day of delay in replying to the RPI.

The Commission can apply fines of up to 6% of the annual turnover for any breach of DSA obligations, failure to comply with interim measures, or breach of commitments. They can also continue to apply periodic penalties, as described above. If these fail, the Commission can request a temporary suspension of service. This must be ordered by a judge in a member state establishment, the only requirement that was located in the DSA for a judicial intervention [19] here.

Why has America changed direction on censorship?

The implementation of the DSA was viewed favourably by the last US administration under President Biden, but the incoming president, Donald Trump, is challenging the current censorship regime. In part, Trump’s suspicion of the current censors was derived by unsuccessful attempts to impeach hm. He believed this was CIA-funded, and undertaken by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) [20] here. The CIA funds the OCCRP via US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID and the OCCRP are part of the censorship regime, as described in an earlier report, available in the archives of The Control of Information.

The American investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger has investigating censorship in the USA for several years. He was one of the journalists who worked on the Twitter files, e.g., the emails and other reports that were released after Twitter changed ownership. These files demonstrated that the US government had pressured social media companies to censor posts that were critical of the American government, even when those posts were accurate. Shellenberger stated that the CIA, USAID, and OCCRP had been involved in regime change operations overseas and they used the same tactics in the USA when they unsuccessfully tried to impeach Trump [21] here. According to researcher Andrew Lowenthal, over the past couple of months, the American free speech activist organisation liber-net has built a database of almost 1000 federal government awards from 2016-2024 that went towards countering “misinformation” [22] here. These will need to be disentangled; Benz states that this is so complex that it may take decades to do so [23] here.

Another significant American player in protecting the First Amendment is Elon Musk, said to be one of the richest people in the world. Musk is a free speech absolutist, who bought the social media platform Twitter in order to reduce content moderation on that site. He supported the Trump presidential campaign, and is now part of the Trump government [24] here. However, this does not mean that Trump and Musk are universally receiving good press for their efforts to protect the First Amendment. They have made notable converts, including Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Meta. Unfortunately, USA (and maybe much of the world) is polarised [25] here, and each move to reduce censorship activities divides America further, with one side applauding and the other side highly critical. It is only the beginning of a campaign to free American citizens and restore their rights, and it has a long way to go.

The DSA, OSA and other such censorship laws enacted across the globe are a huge obstacle that the new American administration have to overcome. The web of censorship is meshed throughout the world, designed to handicap American companies that operate globally, in order to force them to moderate content, including in the USA. The new US administration may struggle to win hearts and minds of those who already support the ideas of hate speech, and ‘dangerous disinformation’. In the same way, Europe may find the American administration and some corporations that are likely to be penalised under the DSA are formidable opponents to their censorship regime.

How is the implementation of the DSA going?

There has been general compliance with the DSA by VLOSE and VLOP. In July 2024 Musk stated that the European Commission (EC) offered VLOP a ‘secret deal’; if they secretly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not be fined. He said that other platforms accepted the deal, but X didn’t [26] here. Since then, it has been reported that the EC and X have been in negotiations; in February 2025 it was said that X had handed over documents as required by the DSA [27] here.

Despite an announcement in January 2025 that Facebook would end its third-party fact checking partnership, in February Facebook formally announced that it would ramp up the fight against disinformation in the EU. Hence the Meta position is ambiguous, they are trying to please both sides. 42 platforms including those owned by Google, Meta and Microsoft committed to the DSA code of conduct, but Musk continues to criticise the content moderation rules imposed by the DSA [28] here.

American Vice President J.D. Vance.

Musk has been joined in his fight for free expression by American Vice-President JD Vance. In Paris at an AI conference in February 2025, Vance told Europeans that their massive regulations could strangle the technology, and he rejected content moderation as a tool for authoritarian censorship [29] here.

Vance gave an even more hard-hitting speech in Munich on 13 February, at the Munich Security Conference. I thank Substack writer Eugyptus for this account of Vance’s speech, which inspired me [30] here. I knew nothing at all about Vance until I heard about this particular speech, which is the one that I have long wanted any politician to deliver. This is just a summary of the speech, and to read more about it visit Eugyptus’s Substack.

The audience expected Vance to talk about the Russian threat to European liberal democracy, but instead he said that Russia and China were not the real danger. He described the real danger as from within, from a political elite that is arrayed against the fundamental values that European leaders claim to share with the US. He suggested that the US has no interest in providing security for a closed, authoritarian Continental political class.

Vance particularly referred to the recent annulment of the Romanian election. He said that he saw a former European Commissioner on television who expressed delight at this development, warning that this could happen in Germany if things did not go the right way, i.e, if German people favoured a candidate that their leaders did not want, the German elections would be cancelled. Vance said he found these statements shocking.

He stated that he deplored the campaigns against internet discourse, and the use of police in Germany, who carried out raids against citizens because of their expressed views online. Vance acknowledged that the impetus for these authoritarian attitudes arose from the American progressive establishment, against which the current government was waging a full-scale war. He said that politicians on both continents could work together to reverse political repressions that arose during the ‘Biden administration’. Vance criticised the conference organisers themselves – organisers of the Munich Security Conference had “banned lawmakers from populist parties…from participating in these conversations”.

“…to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet era misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea might express a different opinion, or, God forbid, vote in a different way, or even worse, win an election.”

He made it clear that Trump had no interest in funding the defence of a postliberal Europe. If Europeans were in fear of their own voters, then America could not help them. Politicians needed democratic mandates to get anything done. Vance said that dismissing people and their concerns or shutting people out of the democratic process protects nothing. Speaking up and expressing opinions are not election interference.

Relating to the theme of ‘misinformation’, Vance mocked the idea that the Wuhan lab leak was called misinformation, stating that during the covid era, governments silenced what was later found to be the truth. On the issue of climate change narratives and also listening to speakers from the other side of the Atlantic, he commented that if American democracy survived ten years of Greta Thunberg’s scolding, then European democracy can survive Elon Musk. And then to my favourite passage from Vance’s Munich speech:

“Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold this principle, or you don’t. Europeans: the people have a choice. European leaders have a choice. Embrace what your people tell you, even if its surprising, even when you don’t agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty, and with confidence, knowing your nation stands behind you.”

Eugyptus makes the obvious point that Vance’s speech went far beyond the limits for acceptable German pollical discourse. Those politicians that were present were highly critical, especially of Vance’s contention that conditions in Europe were like those in authoritarian regimes. This was described as unacceptable. A Chancellor candidate said that this was none of Vance’s business – there were enough problems for him to deal with in the USA. Another politician said that when Vance visited Dachau, he said never again, yet Vance endorsed an Alternative for Germany (AfD) candidate in the elections – AfD is considered a right-wing party in Germany. In fact, Vance had made it clear that the American administration would work with the candidate that was successful, from any of the three front-runners, one of which is the AfD.

Can interventions from over-the-pond change the DSA implementation?

The DSA requirements and the recently introduced defence of the First Amendment in USA are in direct opposition. In many ways, differences in this particular policy epitomises the polarisation that is dividing populations across the world. At the moment instead of the two ‘sides’ learning something from each other and trying to find compromise, any declarations push each side into a more extreme position.

Whilst I personally profoundly disagree with some policy decisions of the Trump/Vance administration, on censorship I am totally convinced that they are on the right path, and what they are doing takes commitment and courage. I have been researching censorship since 2001, and no politician anywhere has made any statement compared to Vance’s Munich speech, and no politician anywhere has made such radical moves to protect free speech as Trump since his inauguration.

There is evidence that the DSA in the EU and the OSA in the UK were drafted to suit American interests, and the interests of the hidden policy makers that operate above the levels of government. However, the EU sees control of discourse as being in its own interests. It was unthinkable at the time of the drafting of the DSA that any American would be voted to power who had the courage to remove the restrictions that were imposed on a mainly unsuspecting and compliant public. Trump only has one term in government, which is insufficient to unravel the web of censorship and propaganda that has taken decades, maybe centuries, to lay down. During this five-year term, we may see a constant struggle between Europe and America. The principles of protection or freedom, democracy for the people or protecting institutions of state, will swing one way or another. The DSA may remain, but maybe some of the interpretations of its most draconian measures may be softened. The owners of VLOSE will no doubt continue to comply with the most stringent of the DSA requirements. The owners of VLOP – Musk and Zuckerberg – may tire of operating their platforms under the DSA regime in Europe. Although USA has made considerable progress towards ending government censorship, in Europe the powerful are still resisting change, and most of the population are not aware of how their rights to free speech, and freedom, are being removed.

Conclusion.

The DSA is a law that legalises censorship, and requires operators on social media to implement its authoritarian policies for free, with draconian penalties for non-compliance. Because those who are charged with implementing censorship under the Act are global players, the effects of DSA censorship will be felt worldwide.

Part of the censorship and propaganda regime is to use psyops against ordinary populations so that they view speech with which they disagree as ‘dangerous’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘right wing’ ‘extremist’ and ‘hateful’. Governments like the EU and the UK, and many others, have stepped in to provide a worldwide army of censors, describing them as protectors of their complaint and servile citizens. Any new political party that opposes censorship is described as ‘populist’ or ‘right wing’ and a threat to society.

As a new administration in USA has been voted in with a mandate to remove censorship, this has put the EU and the USA on a collision course. At the heart of this struggle are the Very Large Online Platforms, e.g., Meta and X. They are required not to censor on behalf of the US government by the US administration, with penalties if they persist in doing so, and those American institutions that fund censorship are being disabled. However, these same platforms are required by law to censor in Europe, with draconian penalties. The two main platforms, Meta and X, are taking different paths in dealing with this conundrum.

Whatever happens, the unravelling of the network of censorship has begun, but with severe resistance. Even with full cooperation, it will take decades to unravel. Political change has already happened in USA. In Europe, with its lack of an overall democratic leader, and its myriad of countries each with their own governments that are somewhat controlled by outside forces, it will be a much more difficult challenge. The future is uncertain, but we have hit exciting times.