THE EU CENSORSHIP FILES
“We need to take back our country” = ILLEGAL “hate” speech in Europe.
New secret docs show how EU regulators are pushing Big Tech behind closed doors to censor conservatives.
Thread:
“We need to take back our country” = ILLEGAL “hate” speech in Europe.
New secret docs show how EU regulators are pushing Big Tech behind closed doors to censor conservatives.
Thread:
.@JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August.
In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world.
In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world.
Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime.
The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.”
New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal.
In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online.
Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one.
And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public.
What were they trying to hide?
And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public.
What were they trying to hide?
Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.”
Documents also show that European bureaucrats are eager to censor humor and satire.
During the workshop, EU regulators indicated that platforms should use “content moderation processes”—meaning censorship—to “address the use of . . . memes.”
During the workshop, EU regulators indicated that platforms should use “content moderation processes”—meaning censorship—to “address the use of . . . memes.”
And despite what the EU says publicly, this censorship cannot be limited to Europe.
Workshop materials make clear that platforms are expected to change their terms and conditions to comply with the DSA.
Workshop materials make clear that platforms are expected to change their terms and conditions to comply with the DSA.
Major platforms like Facebook and YouTube enforce their terms and conditions globally, meaning that EU-mandated changes will affect what Americans can say and see online.
Under the DSA, companies are also expected to solicit feedback on content moderation from civil society organizations—many of which are entitled to make priority censorship requests.
Internal workshop notes from one American company show that these orgs are almost uniformly pro-censorship and called for aggressive content removals.
The censorship-industrial complex sadly is still thriving in Europe.
The censorship-industrial complex sadly is still thriving in Europe.
The DSA also empowers individual countries to make takedown requests.
Our documents show that EU countries are targeting political speech on core topics like immigration and the environment.
Our documents show that EU countries are targeting political speech on core topics like immigration and the environment.
In Poland, regulators want to silence debate about electric vehicles.
They directed TikTok to remove a video that simply stated, “electric cars are neither ecological nor an economical solution.”
They directed TikTok to remove a video that simply stated, “electric cars are neither ecological nor an economical solution.”
In France, regulators want to silence debate about Europe’s mass migration policies.
Police sought the removal of this post satirically noting that permissive French immigration and citizenship policies may have caused a violent attack by a Syrian asylum seeker.
Police sought the removal of this post satirically noting that permissive French immigration and citizenship policies may have caused a violent attack by a Syrian asylum seeker.
And in Germany, authorities want to silence debate about deportations of criminal aliens.
Regulators said that a post calling to deport immigrants accused of more than 100 crimes constituted illegal “incitement to hatred.”
Regulators said that a post calling to deport immigrants accused of more than 100 crimes constituted illegal “incitement to hatred.”
These takedowns were national in scope—but they may not stay that way.
European courts have empowered national regulators to issue global content removal orders, meaning that this censorship could be also coming to the U.S.
European courts have empowered national regulators to issue global content removal orders, meaning that this censorship could be also coming to the U.S.
Taken together, the evidence is clear: the Digital Services Act requires the world’s largest social media platforms (many of which are American) to censor core political speech affecting users in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
The Committee continues to investigate foreign threats to American free speech.
Big Tech continues to produce their communications with foreign government censors on an ongoing basis to the Committee under subpoena.
Big Tech continues to produce their communications with foreign government censors on an ongoing basis to the Committee under subpoena.
Read the Committee’s full report on the European censorship threat here: judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subs…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
