ADF International

A fierce debate erupted over the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) at @WebSummit , one of the world’s most important technology conferences. As more and more of our political and public debate moves online, we must ensure that tech giants cannot place themselves above sovereign states and the rule of law. But the EU has used this legitimate concern as a pretext to build a censorship machine. The diagnosis was right. The implementation has been disastrous. Instead of protecting individual rights, the DSA has become an Orwellian system designed to control public discourse. Through networks of liberal-progressive NGOs, it forces tech companies to restrict the reach of certain content across Europe. If these companies refuse to cooperate with the liberal censors, they face enormous fines and risk being driven out of the European market. These NGO networks receive staggering amounts of EU funding. In fact, the EU spends more on operating its censorship apparatus than it does on cancer research. Meanwhile, ordinary Europeans have no idea which content is being downranked, restricted, or removed, let alone why, or at whose request. At best, after months of legal battles, fragments of the truth begin to emerge. During the Hungarian election campaign, according to the data available to us, 200,000 pieces of content were restricted or downranked. This is interference in democratic competition without meaningful transparency. And since the DSA came into force, this kind of interference has taken place in elections across Europe. The DSA is, in essence, a political mute button. A tool that can be used to silence anyone. So let me ask you a simple question: Who among the people you know would you trust with such a button? Now ask yourself another question: Would you want your most despised political opponent to have that button in their hands? I don’t think anyone would. And that is precisely why this button must not exist. Because the real question is not whose opinions are being suppressed today. The real question is whether we can allow anyone to arrogate to themselves the power to decide which opinions people are allowed to hear.