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 5

“…the human reality-processing system is vulnerable to exploitation in that it is driven powerfully by emotion. Unless human beings are particularly motivated to be accurate, emotion tends to unconsciously direct our thinking much of the time, such that we accept versions of reality that “feel” true. So pervasive is this tendency that one scholar of cognition has described reason as a “gun for hire” in service of emotion.” Lissa Johnson, Clinical Psychologist, 2019.

“In the coming months, we will end the current third-party fact-checking programme in the United States and begin moving to a community-based programme called Community Notes. We are beginning with rolling out Community Notes in the US and will continue to improve it over the course of the year before expansion to other countries.

Today, in the rest of the world, we rely on fact-checkers who are independent from Meta and certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or, in Europe, the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) to address misinformation on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. While fact-checkers focus on the legitimacy and accuracy of information, we focus on taking action by informing people when content has been rated”. Facebook statement, February 2025.

The fact checking industry in Europe – an overall view.

In reporting the censorship industry in Europe in the last four postings, the size and scope of this new industry was revealed, its funding, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its critics, including the tensions developing between USA and Europe. The networking organisations and enforcement agencies funded by the EU were described, plus an in-detail examination of four large European fact check platforms. This last section on the censorship industry in Europe gives an overall look at sectors within the industry including think tanks, AI technology companies, fact check platforms, and the academic sector will be briefly described.

The Twitter files – is there a European equivalent?

The Twitter Files was the name given to the huge cache of documents that were released by Elon Musk when he purchased Twitter (now renamed X) in 2022. This included emails and other forms of communication between social media executives and the American government. This revealed how the government and social media colluded to disenfranchise the American population, by distorting information that was available to them. Some of the information in the Twitter Files revealed related to European censorship activities, although most referred to American events. The founder of the American organisation Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO), Mike Benz, has added further information concerning the European fact check industry. This mostly relates to American funding of European censors and American pressures to establish wide reaching censorship legislation [1] here.

There has been no similar event in Europe, although researchers have used the evidence provided by the Twitter Files and FFO to analyse European platforms. For example, the Twitter files revealed communications between the US administration and the EU before 2022, including the American interest in the DSA [2] here. There have been independent investigations into parts of the fact check industry, for example, in UK there have been exposures concerning nefarious activities of Integrity Initiative in UK, the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), and the UK government’s fact checking activities, as recorded in my earlier reports [3] here. However, no major research projects have been located that analyses the activities of the EU, a major funder and actor in censorship, although such projects may exist. Hence, the nefarious activities of actors funded by Europe has been hidden from view.

Think Tanks.

More think tanks were located in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe, but this may be because clues to locating think tanks are funding issues, which are more difficult to trace in the Western countries in Europe. EU Western Europe funded think tanks include the Centre for Media Freedom and Media Pluralism, described in Section 3 of the European analysis [4] here. Another is the Portuguese think tank OberCom, partly funded by the EU through the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO); its website carries the EU logo. Its glossy website describes OberCom's mission as “… to produce knowledge and mediate an open debate, involving academics and experts, main actors in the communication industry in Portugal and the general public.” Its associates are Google, a Californian company that finances media projects, various media organisations, and the Portuguese Media Lab. OberCom’s research includes a mainly positive analysis of the DSA particularly addressing the positive impacts on the media ecosystem of what is called disinformation, hate speech and online crime. Another analyses an EC publication that evaluates public funding to support the media. This research does not question the need of censorship, nor its negative connotations [5] here, but follows approved narratives; debate does emerge but only through a narrow Overton window. For example, research into media funding sees this as a public good in order to preserve the media sector, rather than considering how the media could increase its revenue without public funds by changing the style of its content [6] here.

In the countries that were formerly in the Soviet bloc, examples are GLOBSEC from Slovakia, Portico Capital from Hungary, GONG of Croatia, Debunk.eu from Lithuania, Funky Citizen from Romania, and the Baltic Center for Media Excellence in Latvia. GLOBSEC has offices in Brussels, Kyiv, and in Washington DC it has established the GLOBSEC US Foundation. It is in the lead group for the EDMO based in Florence, and also a member of Bulgarian-Romanian Observatory of Digital media (BROD). GLOBSEC states that it ensures its independence with a diverse range of funders, none of which can contribute more than 15% of its annual income. However, all donors and funders are from governments, large corporations, or foundations of those with immense wealth. For example, in 2023, it was funded by 37 such organisations, including the EU, the UK, Slovakia, NATO, Canada, Taiwan, and the American Global Engagement Center (GEC). 2,023 foundations donated included the Open Information Partnership (OIP) that in turn is funded by the UK government, and the Open Society Foundation, that extensively funds censorship projects[7] here. Another shadowy funder was the Future of Russia Foundation, based in UK. Its past American partnerships include the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Brookings Institute, and The Atlantic Council. GLOBSEC’s research projects are focussed on security and defence, energy and the future of Europe [8] here. It holds an annual summit and forum, to which only invitees can attend, and a GLOBSEC Young Leaders Forum (GYLF), stating that ‘youth engagement has always been an integral part of our work’ [9] here. The 63 partners in the 2024 GLOBSEC forum included Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and members of the military industrial complex, as well as the EU, other large corporations, media corporations, and energy companies [10] here.

The other East European think tanks have their own character but have similar activities and a similar range of funders, especially from USA and Western Europe. They all have links to the fact check industry, for example, the smaller Romanian think tank Funky Citizens has a fact check platform called Factuel and is also a member of BROD. It also runs training courses focussing for media literacy and undertakes research. Funky Citizens funding is mainly from East European trusts that are in themselves funded by wealthy European and American philanthropists [11] here.

Debunk.eu states that it is an independent analytical centre that researches disinformation in the public space and executes media literacy campaigns. Its website states that it is funded by Delfi, a large media corporation in the Baltic States, and Google’s Digital News Initiative [12] here. The FFO states that Debunk has also received US$224,744 from the US State Department [13] here, and OIP lists Debunk as one of its members [14] here. Debunk runs a fact checking project called the Lithuanian Elves, described as volunteers; the scope of their fact checking covers a large part of Europe plus USA. Debunk’s current research articles were not easy to locate, but those that were found are linked to AI and technology [15] here.

AI companies and technology in Europe.

One of the leading European AI companies supporting the fact check industry in Europe is the Athens Technology Center (ATC), a for-profit company. ATC is part of the governance of the EDMO, with five members of ATC in the team that heads this vast enforcement organisation [16] here. ATC has also had a presence in regional EDMO teams, including BROD, CEDMO, BELUX, and GADMO. These are teams in central, western and eastern Europe, more details can be found [17] here. ATC has also worked on EU research projects, such as Reveal [18] here. ATC was established 30 years ago and now claims a global presence, employing 95 software engineers [19] here.

Also in Greece is a government funded research and technology organisation the Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH) [20] here. CERTH is a member of MedDMO hub of the EDMO, and also worked on the EU funded Reveal project. American journalist Matt Taibbi who analysed the Twitter Files described the Reveal project as “…more overtly terrifying in its dystopian aims than some of its American counterparts” [21] here. The Reveal project was headed by a Luxembourg company, Intrasoft, other AI companies that joined the Reveal project were the German Software AG, the German research and technology company SINTEF and communications company ALBLF of France.

Bulgaria also has an AI company that has been employed on EU projects. Onotext is a graphic technology company that is a member of BROD and also worked on the EU funded vera.ai project. From Ontotext’s perspective:

(their) “main contribution to the vera.ai AI-powered counter-disinformation toolbox is the Database of Known Fakes (DBKF), which has been highlighted as a helpful instrument in the CORDIS EU research portal…The database is an integrated solution that gathers debunking content in different formats, enriches it, and interlinks it in the knowledge graph with meaningful metadata. This in turn enables various advanced searches over the data.” [22] here.

Another software organisation used in the EDMO enforcement group is xWiki, a French/Romanian company that is active in the French De Facto EMO hub, and the ADMO hub that operates in Croatia and Slovenia. It is an Advanced Open-Source Enterprise, funded by its parent company, xWiki SAS, and sponsored by other tech companies.

Fact check platforms.

This is the largest sector in the censorship industry globally, and in Europe, of which four of the largest platforms were investigated in detail in my last post. Only a brief description of the remainder is possible in this report. The most active or unusual fact check platforms will be listed as an insight into the European fact check industry.

Selection of fact check platforms from France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy.

Twenty-one fact check platforms were located in France, of which eleven are linked to media outlets. Three groups are linked – Science Feedback (SF) [23] here which is the parent company and a verified signatory of the IFCN, with two subsidiary platforms Health Feedback, and Climate Feedback. These sites use experts to comment on posts that are being challenged; one criteria is at least one article published in a professional journal. An editor then summarises the expert opinions and makes a judgement. One of the important issues to consider is that academics who go against the official narrative are less likely to have articles published in academic journals. Hence the expert reviewers selected by SF are likely to all hold similar perspectives; the one that funders of academia prefer. Interestingly, in 2021 a journalist in California challenged a judgement made by Climate Feedback on Facebook, and at the hearing the Meta defence stated that the feedback given on Facebook was only an opinion and was therefore protected under the First Amendment, hence the journalist lost the case [24] here. Interestingly the opinion of a huge corporation was protected, but not the opinion of the independent journalist.

Thirteen platforms were located in Spain, eight of which were associated with a media outlet. One of the largest independent platforms is Maldita. Clara Cruz the co-founder and CEO of Maldita.es Foundation. She is also the co-founder of Factchequeado, a U.S.-based initiative aimed at combating ‘disinformation’ within American Hispanic communities. Maldita is also a member of LatAm Chequea, a network of fact checkers in the Spanish and Portuguese speaking parts of the world, including Iberia and South America. Cruz was appointed as a member of the High-Level Group on Disinformation by the European Commission. She currently serves as President of the European Fact-checking Standards Network (EFCSN) and is also a member of the Advisory Board of the International Fact-Checking Network [25] here. Clearly, Maldita is a high-profile platform, both inside Spain and outside Spain. Its funding pattern is similar to that of most Western European fact checking platforms – wealthy philanthropists, Google, EU, Meta, with the exception of US funding via Internews and the NED [26] here. The FFO website states that Maldita has received over US$415 million from USAID over two decades [27] here. This American government funding could be associated with Maldita’s involvement in censorship of the American Spanish speaking population.

In Italy The Fact Checking Factory (TFCF) offers business, computer and data services and also supports two fact checking groups. Pagella Politica is a political magazine launched in 2012, specialising in fact checking and analysing current political events. Pagella was a founder member of the EDMO and is part of the lead team with three representatives in this group, and it also belongs to the Italian Digital Media Observatory (IDMO). It also takes part in the EU project Social Observatory for Disinformation and Social Media Observatory (SOMA) [28] here. It belongs to the European media literacy projects Spotted, Gen Z, and Fakespotting. Pagella also is part of the team at the EFCSN. Its sister organisation Facta fact checks non-political projects including health and climate; TFCF calls it a debunking platform [29] here. Facta has been engaged in third-party fact checking for Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and the WhatsApp tipline. Facta has also taken part in International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) projects. Pagella and Facta are partly funded by TFCF but other income is from the usual sources: EU, Google, and Meta.

Selection of fact check platforms from Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries.

The four Nordic countries belong to an EDMO group called NORDIS. One fact check platform was found in Denmark, one in Finland, one in Norway, and two in Sweden. Additionally, the French newswire AFP also fact checks in Finland for Facebook. The fact check platform in Norway is owned by a group of Norwegian news companies, and one in Sweden is also associated with the media. The most active of these Nordic platforms is the Finnish Faktabaari, a founder member of the IFCN. It also is active in the Scandinavian EDMO hub, NORDIS. It is in the EU Online Disinformation High-Level Group, and also in the EU Media Literacy Expert Group, and on the Council of Europe’s media literacy group. The Faktabaari media literacy programme, founded in 2017 is called Faktabaari EDU and has received support from the international media and institutions including UNESCO [30] here.

Faktabaari states it is primarily funded via third sector grants and prizes, while lectures and material production are additional revenue sources. It claims to have an extensive national and international network and has catalysed multiple joint actions to tackle information disorders within IFCN and the EDMO. Since 2021 within NORDIS Faktabaari has led the development of Digital Information Literacy development.

Germany has thirteen fact check platforms, of which nine are linked to broadcasters or the German press. Of note is the German platform Correctiv, that claims to be an award-winning investigative journalism company, with an interest in debunking what it calls disinformation. On its website it lists 120 staff. Correctiv states it organises 100 workshops with 1100 tutorials for members of the public. Amongst its other functions, its website states that it runs Radio Sakharov in Moscow [31] here. Correctiv receives funding from large foundations and corporations, in 2023 it listed several European philanthropies including the Dutch Adessium Foundatiion, sometimes referred to aa an intelligence cutout [32] here. Luminate (ebay), Facebook, Google, and Open Society were also named in 2023, but names of funders are no longer available on its website in 2025. Researchers have linked Correctiv to German intelligence agencies and NATO, and have also accused it of interfering with European elections [33] here. It has similarities in its organisation and function to the British/Dutch fact check platform Bellingcat, investigated in the last The Control of Information report.

The only other point of interest is the Netherlands. It lacks a national fact check platforms that are contracted to Mata/Facebook for third party fact checking. This is because NU.Nl, one of the original Facebook team joining in the programme in 2013, resigned due to differences in the implementation of fact check activiies [34] here. The Facebook third party fact checking in the Netherlands is currently carried out by the French newswire AFP, and the German newswire dpa.

A selection of fact check platforms from the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia.

A group of fact check platforms called Demogog has offices in Czechia [35] here, Poland and Hungary [36] here and Slovakia [37] here. The activities on all sites appear similar, including fact checking but with considerable emphasis on media literacy training. Demagog is a verified signatory of the IFCN code, and two branches have third party fact checking contracts with Meta. They also fact check on Spotify and TikTok. Demagog takes part in EU projects including CEDMO, the central European branch of EDMO, and the EFSCN. Their income is from the EU via the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF), the Calousie Gubenkian Foundation, the Visigrad Fund, IFCN and Google. The Demagog group earns income from third party fact checking contracts with Meta and Kinzen (Spotify) [38] here. Demagog also receives money from NFNZ, a local funder that supports media projects; in turn NFNZ receives its own funds from Open Society. The FFO state that Demagog has also received a US$10,000 grant from the US Department of State [39] here. The fact checks on all sites include local political events, climate, Ukraine, and health issues including childhood vaccines and Covid-19 vaccination, and follow the narratives of Western powers.

The Baltic states have an active censorship industry, with the mainstream media corporations as important players. There are eleven fact check platforms, seven linked to media corporates, one is part of NATO, one is linked to the think tank Debunk.eu and two are independent. One example is Delfi Melo Detektorius in Lithuania, owned by Delfi (Ekspress Grupp) [40] here. Unlike many fact check platforms Delfi publishes all of its funding sources, which include NED, NATO, Open Information Partnership (OIP), Meta, Delfi, and the European Commission (EC) [41] here. It is part of BECID, the Baltic hub of the EDMO. It is also part of the Facebook third-party fact check program, fact checking in Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, from which it derived about 38% of its income in 2023.

A selection of fact check platforms found in the Balkans: Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia.

This is an area that is widely funded by USA. For example, Faktoje, the only part of the fact check industry located in Albania was founded with grants from USAID and the Gender Alliance for Development (GAID). In turn, GAID is funded by NED, USAID, and others. Ongoing funding is from the Netherlands government, NED, the American International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) and the EU [42] here. As in the central European countries, some fact check platforms cross boundaries with the same names appearing in two or more countries. For example, Raskrinkavenje appears in Bosnia Herzegovina [43] here, Montenegro [44] here and Serbia [45] here. Raskrinkavenje has received American funding from NED, the US Embassy, Meta, and Open Society. Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) (part of the American German Marshall Fund), IFCN, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) (funded by USAID), and the Rockefeller Fund. The fact check platform in Kosovo, Kryptometri, [46] here also known as Internews Kosova, is managed and partly funded by Internews that receives 95% of its funding from the US government via USAID. Vistinomer from North Macedonia [47] here receives American funding from The American Bar Association, NED, USAID, and BTD.

With the dominance of American funding for censorship activities in the Balkans, it is hard to see that the media, and content moderation, can be independent of the wishes of the American government. A significant part of the funding has been through USAID, sometimes via other organisations such as Internews and the OCCRP; USAID was closed down in February 2025. However, these activities could be funded directly from US embassies. Although censorship of American citizens is under scrutiny by the current US administration, America will still want to protect its soft power influence in the region, and it will not want this part of Europe to be able to speak freely on US policies.

Universities and fact checking.

As, in the UK and the USA, universities in Europe play a significant role in the censorship industry, and at least 51 were located that are active in the censorship industry. The two academic institutes that are in the lead team of the EDMO are briefly investigated in this report. These are the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence; 14 members of the EUI are in the team. The other university is Aarhus University from Denmark, with 2 members.

The EUI is Europe’s postgraduate and postdoctoral research university dedicated to the social sciences and humanities. Established in 1972, the EUI describes itself as “an intergovernmental organisation providing advanced academic training and cutting-edge research opportunities in the fields of economics, history, law, political and social sciences, and beyond”. [48] here. Many of the research projects listed on its website relate to governance, AI, and the future of societies within Europe, including the impact of the DSA. Topics in the EUI news section included evaluation of the response of member states to the DSA, and reactions to the speech of US Vice President JD Vance and its implications for Europe. The emphasis was on the value of the DSA, whilst ignoring messages that counter that position.

Aarhus University is a specialist in data analysis with a data lab and offering postgraduate courses in data management. The Aarhus Data Lab lists nineteen projects related to disinformation and censorship in which the university plays a significant or lead role. This includes the EDMO; in addition, Aarhus also leads NORDIS (Nordic Disinformation lab), an EDMO hub that involves all four Scandinavian countries. Aarhus also is part of SOMA, an EU-funded project that investigates social media dynamics and the relationship between social media and other sectors, headed by the ATC. Apart from the projects listed in the Data Lab, Aarhus’s journalism department is enrolled in the EUFactCheck.eu to ensure journalism students are trained in fact checking techniques.

Academia is no longer a disinterested group of educational organisations, intent on furthering knowledge and being tolerant of those with alternative views. It is a commercial enterprise, and like other industries, its products are sold to the highest bidder. There is little interest in funding freedom to make statements that may offend, or funding robust debate, or even in funding scientific knowledge if it does not meet with current political expectations. These two examples demonstrate the capture of academia to further the expectations of those who can afford to pay tor speech to be censored.

Conclusion – European censorship.

This research into European censorship demonstrates that Europe is entrenched in a web of censorship, content creation, and propaganda. It is funded by the EU and the European Commission, other European governments, and those with immense wealth. This includes interference in European freedoms by interested parties from outside the EU.

Although the targets of the censorship regime are primarily dissenting voices in Europe, the legislation that legalises censorship in Europe has a reach outside Europe itself. Past American administrations have cooperated with the EU in passing such legislation, with a view that this is a backdoor means of censoring American voices. Such legislation cannot be enacted in the USA where American citizens have a constitutional right to speech uncensored by their government. However, the current American administration is being active in protecting First Amendment obligations, creating interesting challenges for Europe.

Currently, very large online platforms are caught between the USA, where free speech is protected, and Europe, where censorship is legalised with penalties for offending censorship laws. This struggle has only just arisen, and it is as yet unknown how this will unfold. However, the network of activities that surround Europe’s legalised censorship are deeply entrenched and handsomely funded, and many European citizens are convinced by political statements that such legislation is necessary, brave, and the only way to protect the vulnerable.

Until Europeans themselves rise to protect their rights to dissent, to protest, to differ and to debate, the future for European human rights will remain under attack. This is from those with wealth and power who demand censorship in order to control speech and populations.