Censorship
Everywhere censorship is spreading, and more and more countries are passing laws to punish "disinformation". Rest assured, this does not concern those who guaranteed us the effectiveness of masks or the safety of COVID vaccines; it is about controlling political opposition.
Thus, scared by the demonstrations following the election of Lula, Brazil is preparing a "Software Democracy Package" (you can't make this up) which will allow the punishment of "terrorist and anti-democratic" content. Since the end of 2022, Turkey has been offering up to three years in prison to authors of "fake news". It thus joins the exclusive club of countries that punish disinformation: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar...
Fortunately, freedom of expression remains protected in the West! Or does it?
The Digital Service Act
Let's take the example of the Digital Service Act, which will come into effect in Europe no later than January 1, 2024.
Presentation and adoption
Here is how the French government presents it. The functioning of the system is displayed without complex. Everything is there!
The justification: "Hate, manipulation, disinformation, counterfeiting... These excesses are increasingly affecting online content. To better protect Europeans...". Censorship is for our own good!
The origin and democratic process: the project comes from the European Commission, an unelected institution by definition. Once voted, it will apply to all member countries; the only vaguely democratic barrier in the process is the passage through the European Parliament, seat of all lobbies and power plays.
Content of the Digital Service Act
The aim is to combat the dissemination of illegal content and disinformation.
Member States are increasingly introducing, or are considering introducing, national laws on the matters covered by this Regulation, imposing, in particular, diligence requirements for providers of intermediary services as regards the way they should tackle illegal content, online disinformation or other societal risks. (art. 2)
In particular, the concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined broadly to cover information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content... (art 12)
But who will decide what is "hate speech, terrorist or discriminatory content"? Certainly not a citizen collective... We are facing a tool of political control, which will give the system the power to define disinformation, and then impose its elimination from the internet.
The text also sets up a crisis response strategy.
Such crises could result from armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, including emerging conflicts or acts of terrorism, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as from pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health. (art. 91)
Pretty much everything, and this will justify the implementation of exceptional measures to control information, such as:
... adapting content moderation processes and increasing the resources dedicated to content moderation, adapting terms and conditions, relevant algorithmic systems and advertising systems, further intensifying cooperation with trusted flaggers, taking awareness-raising measures and promoting trusted information and adapting the design of their online interfaces. (art. 91)
Once again, the system is both judge and jury: it will declare the circumstance exceptional and thus be able to arrogate censorship powers to itself.
Implementation
It will be carried out through content publishing platforms, broadly defined: internet access providers, cloud hosts, search engines, social networks. In other words, the messenger is being held responsible for the message, with deterrent fines.
We are in the midst of the system's fight for control of the Internet; nothing to do with the protection of individuals, freedom or democracy!
The Twitter Files
The Twitter Files show how Twitter served the Democratic Party during the 2020 US elections.
We can see in particular the direct connections between Democratic representatives, the FBI, the CIA, and Twitter's leadership, the requests for censorship in real time, as well as the tools used to apply this censorship.
It is obviously naive to think that these censorship measures existed only on Twitter... All other major media and social networks have similar communication channels and tools to censor content that is hostile to the system.
Here for example we see Facebook assuring the White House that they are focused on censoring content that is fair ("often-true"), but that could make people hesitate to get vaccinated. The same rules are applied to WhatsApp.
The military's involvement
Censorship is not just a matter for journalists. Military resources have been deployed to control information about COVID-19. In England, for example: "The army has mobilised an elite 'information warfare' unit renowned for assisting operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to counter online propaganda against vaccines." (source).
These are the same types of units that the US military has used to spread false information about conflicts in the Middle East, Iran, or Afghanistan (sosource), and which have, in all likelihood, also been mobilized for COVID: see here, here, or here.
Note also the existence of "mercenary" groups, used for similar purposes by states or private entities.