The European Commission has asked Meta, the owner and operator of Facebook, for information on the measures it has taken to comply with its obligations regarding risk assessment and safeguards to protect the integrity of the elections and in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks to protect. perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, in particular regarding the dissemination and amplification of illegal content and disinformation. Beneath this official babble lies a call to explain the publication of unlawful content and provide information on how censorship rules are implemented.
The EC quietly talks about illegality in Spain, or why socialists are allowed to trample on democracy
Important IMF news! Poland has become richer than any other EU country. Who’s next? We have an ambitious goal in mind
Tomorrow the EP committee will vote on the proposal to amend the Treaties! Szydło warns: Member States will be deprived of their veto power
A similar request was sent to the Chinese Tik-Tok, as well as to the X platform – the former Twitter. In short, the point is that Eurocrats do not like the content published on social media, and that is why they threaten to apply the censorship rules in force in the EU since August 25, the so-called Digital Services Act (DSA). The largest social media and browsers face fines of up to 6%. worldwide annual revenue if they do not comply with EU censorship regulations. From February 2024, censorship rules will be extended to other entities publishing content online. Censorship will therefore be systematic and widespread.
The French Eurocrat, Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, is responsible for its implementation. The official has already sent warnings to YouTube and Platform X, formerly Twitter. The latter can even be blocked within the EU. So, dear reader, because Brussels may not like what is published on
The war in the Middle East is now an excuse for the Eurocrats’ increased vigilance on censorship, but the work on introducing censorship started before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and was introduced before the attack of Hamas terrorists in Israel. The official reason for censorship is, as always, the concern for the public interest by preventing disinformation. The DSA Act contains definitions of illegal and socially harmful content. In principle and message, the EU rules are analogous to those introduced in the Polish People’s Republic by the communist military junta during martial law. They contain false information that could cause social unrest. You could go to jail if you spread them.
Today, the role of a censor, such as the Central Office for the Control of Publications and Performances in the Polish People’s Republic, is played by various types of non-governmental organizations, such as Demagogue, or the well-known Informant Center for Monitoring. Racist and xenophobic behavior, the founder of which was Rafał Gaweł. The mechanism is simple: such organizations receive money, for example from Soros funds, search the Internet and submit reports to the appropriate agencies, both at national and EU level.
We should not forget that systemic state censorship already exists in Germany, for example, where traditional media, but also social media platforms, can pay fines of up to 50 million euros for spreading the so-called false information. It is of course up to these censorship organizations, politicians and officials to determine what is considered false information. For example, the European Union collaborates with an American organization or the censorship company NewsGuard, which is known for its systemic fight against right-wing and conservative media in the United States.
The repression that can be imposed on those who do not comply with the censorship is very broad. These include fines and blocking of activities, as well as jailing those who publish things that the authorities do not like. In Germany, for example, a court in Verdun sent an 87-year-old “right-wing extremist” to prison for eight months for publishing two “hateful” comments against immigrants. The woman was treated more harshly than most German war criminals. In France, for example, you can get two years in prison for publishing content that could discourage abortion.
Photos from Germany, photos from autumn. The European brothel and human trafficking
There are also informal methods of combating freedom of expression. One of these is the pressure on companies to withdraw advertising and deprive unorthodox media or social media platforms of their revenue. Such an action was organized, for example, against Twitter when Elon Musk took over, under pressure from the traditional media, by organizations uniting companies from the advertising industry and media houses. The point was that he took out the internal censorship department, which became famous after it blocked then-President Trump’s account. Musk himself does not like libertarian views either.
Now Musk is at odds with Berlin after criticizing the German government’s funding of criminal organizations called non-governmental organizations that smuggle illegal immigrants out of Africa and work with human traffickers. In response, German companies threatened to delete their accounts or restrict or suspend publications and advertisements. According to a survey by the association Bitcom, as many as 21 percent of German companies that have accounts on the X platform are considering deleting them. 36 percent have disabled or limited their advertising.
The increase in fake news, hate speech or expressions of extreme political attitudes has created a sense of great uncertainty for many companies
– Bernhard Rohleder, director of the Bitkom association, tells the daily newspaper “Die Welt”.
Of course, it is about submitting to the terror of political correctness, but also about cooperation with the beloved authorities who give or take away orders, allow or refuse tenders, which ultimately translates into precious money.
The traditional media is an ally in the censorship tendencies of Eurocrats and all authorities. The thing is, social media is their competition. Why would any citizen be on X or YouTube and watch an independent creator? You would be better off spending this time on Onet or WP. The point is also that traditional media are losing their monopoly on lies. It is unacceptable that any citizen can lie like her.
In any case, it is a stark, mocking paradox, but also a symbol of the Union’s activities, that no significant global social media or social platform has been established on its territory, but that it is the first supranational organization to regulates. and in practice it imposes censorship on them. These regulations were even praised by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her September State of the Union address. This best illustrates the mental misery of the Eurocracy.
Source: wPolityce