If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, has offered to travel to Romania to testify in a potential investigation into claims of foreign interference in the country’s presidential election, a vote that has already been mired in annulments, accusations, and international friction. His declaration came shortly after Romanian candidate George Simion demanded that the results be voided, arguing that the process had been compromised by outside forces. Simion, a nationalist who lost to pro-European contender Nicușor Dan, described the interference as coming from “state and non-state actors,” naming France and Moldova among the culprits. Durov, replying to Simion on X, said he was “ready to come and testify if it helps Romanian democracy.” The runoff ended with Dan taking 53.6% of the vote, while Simion claimed 46.4%. Simion, however, has refused to accept the result, framing his loss as the product of coordinated external efforts to sabotage his campaign. Durov’s entry into the fray brings a different dimension to the case. Earlier this year, the Telegram CEO accused Nicolas Lerner, who leads France’s foreign intelligence service, of personally requesting that Telegram remove conservative voices from the Romanian digital space ahead of the election. Durov claimed Telegram rejected this request. France’s DGSE denied any attempt to censor political viewpoints, claiming their outreach to Durov was a matter of security and involved “firmly reminding him of his company’s responsibilities, and his own personally, in preventing terrorist and child pornography threats.” Durov responded publicly, rejecting the framing entirely. According to him, “French foreign intelligence confirmed they met with me, allegedly to fight terrorism and child porn. In reality, child porn was never even mentioned. They did want IPs of terror suspects in France, but their main focus was always geopolitics: Romania, Moldova, Ukraine.” He went on to challenge the narrative that Telegram fails to act on child exploitation content, outlining a range of tools and initiatives already in place: fingerprint-based filtering, dedicated moderation teams, NGO partnerships, and regular reports on content removals. “Falsely implying Telegram did nothing to remove child porn is a manipulation tactic,” Durov said. This isn’t Durov’s first confrontation with French authorities. In August of the previous year, he was arrested in France over allegations tied to user activity on his platform. He was released after posting €5 million in bail and left the country by mid-March. Meanwhile, the election’s legitimacy remains under a cloud. Romania’s initial presidential vote last November saw a surprise win by independent candidate Calin Georgescu. That result was quickly overturned by the Constitutional Court, which cited suspected Russian meddling. Later reports suggested Georgescu’s momentum may have been fueled by a campaign orchestrated by operatives linked to the governing National Liberal Party, apparently intended to fracture the right-wing electorate. Georgescu was barred from running in the new election. Romanian officials have again accused Moscow of interference in the recent runoff. Russia has dismissed those allegations, characterizing the electoral process in Bucharest as disorderly and illegitimate. Durov’s pledge to participate in the investigation has added fuel to a situation already marked by charges of manipulation, censorship, and covert influence. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Telegram’s Pavel Durov Offers to Testify in Romanian Election Probe, Accuses France of Pressuring Platform to Censor Conservative Voices appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This content is available exclusively to supporters of Reclaim The Net Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers and individual liberty online.   Subscribe   Already a supporter? Login here.                       If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post No Warrant No Problem: The Surveillance State Has an App Now appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech. Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy. Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment. The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.” That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.” While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.” Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit. As Dr. Lewis writes: “These chirpy acronyms don’t just sound like digital voice assistants or wellness apps…they are deliberate, dishonest strategic terms chosen to disguise a real authoritarian purpose.” Some of the projects don’t only aim to influence the debate, they aim to automate it. AI-powered initiatives are being trained to identify and suppress politically undesirable speech in real-time. One such project, VIGILANT, is described by its designers as ethical and user-centric, but MCC Brussels challenges this narrative. “VIGILANT is an AI surveillance suite aimed at monitoring, classifying, and profiling speech, users, and networks, which takes the complexity out of controlling freedom of expression.” The report highlights that the EU’s censorship framework is not only technical, it is pedagogical. Programs targeting young people are presented as civic education but function more like behavioral grooming. “The ‘capacity building’ is, in fact, the indoctrination of young people to behave and act as speech police,” the report explains. “What appears to be bottom-up reform is, in fact, a pre-scripted system of narrative compliance.” Another cornerstone of the report is its critique of how taxpayer money is being funneled into what it calls pre-validated “research” meant to affirm political orthodoxy rather than challenge it. “Research that systematically ‘proves’ this assumption is not research; it is the manufacturing of propaganda used to legitimize the narrative, pre-empt criticism, and thus delegitimize any ideas or narratives that do not conform.” Far from defending democracy, MCC Brussels contends that the European Commission is subverting it. “Language is the EU Ministry for Narrative Control’s software infrastructure of control,” the report warns. “When the EU Commission defines hate speech, disinformation or extremism, it is not identifying problems – it is drawing the lines around what can be said, by whom, and with what consequences.” For Dr. Lewis and MCC Brussels, the takeaway is clear: this is not about protecting society from dangerous ideas, but about insulating a ruling ideology from democratic challenge. “The Commission rebrands inquiry as a confirmation ritual rather than any honest pursuit of truth,” the report concludes. “A society that redefines surveillance as ‘safety’ or censorship as ‘content moderation’ does not need to silence citizens outright; it simply changes the meaning of their silence.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Apple has avoided a looming court showdown thanks to a last-minute resolution with Epic Games over Fortnite’s App Store status. What began as a standoff over delayed approvals ended quietly, with both companies informing the court that no further action was needed at the moment. More Epic Games Files Motion Alleging Apple Violated Court Injunction by Blocking Fortnite’s US App Store Submission Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had issued a stern directive on May 19, demanding that Apple explain its failure to process two Fortnite submissions after the game’s return to the iOS ecosystem was expected. The judge set a deadline of May 21 for Apple to respond, and a court date was marked for May 27. But the legal pressure prompted swift action: Apple greenlit the app, and Fortnite returned to the US App Store without further delay. A joint legal filing, shared with AppleInsider, confirmed the matter had been settled. The companies stated they had resolved the dispute tied to Epic’s May 16 motion and saw no need for additional filings or a court hearing. The statement read: “Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause entered on May 19, 2025 (Dkt. 1576), the parties (Epic Games, Inc. and Apple Inc.) jointly submit that they have resolved all issues presented by the Motion to Enforce filed on May 16, 2025 (Dkt. 1568) and that no further submissions by the parties or action by the Court are required with respect to that Motion.” The long-running battle between the two tech giants has produced few clear victories. Although Fortnite has returned and Epic can now use external payment links, Apple is preparing to continue its legal defense of its walled garden App Store commission structure. The company is expected to pursue appeals and maintain its stance that all digital transactions within apps should be subject to its fees. Though Epic didn’t secure every concession it hoped for, it has succeeded in getting Fortnite back into Apple’s ecosystem, where the game is already performing smoothly, Reclaim The Net confirmed. Apple, meanwhile, regains a marquee title on its devices but at the cost of loosening some control over payment methods it has forced on developers for years. While the legal dust is settling, for now, the real shift may be felt by users. More choice and the return of a major title like Fortnite to Apple devices suggest that, at least temporarily, the power dynamic is beginning to shift. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Apple Reinstates Fortnite Amid Antitrust Pressure, Settles Dispute with Epic Games appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US Supreme Court has stepped in to overturn the Maine legislature’s censure of Republican Representative Laurel Libby, marking a clear win for those opposing legislative punishments aimed at curbing political expression. The 7-2 ruling, issued Tuesday, instructed Maine lawmakers to rescind the sanctions they imposed on Libby over a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who had placed first in a girls’ pole vault event. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. The Court found that Libby’s claim merited immediate relief, stating that her right to be free from censure for speech made in her official capacity was “indisputably clear.” Since February, the censure had effectively stripped Libby of her ability to participate in floor debates or vote on legislative matters unless she apologized, a condition she steadfastly rejected. Following the ruling, Libby posted a celebratory message on X: “This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should NEVER have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.” The decision drew pushback from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson voiced particular concern over the Court’s expanding use of emergency rulings, warning that such interventions risked distorting the judicial process. “The watering down of our Court’s standards for granting emergency relief is, to me, an unfortunate development,” she wrote, cautioning that it would lead to more premature and frequent appeals for Supreme Court involvement. Despite public criticism, Libby maintained that no one directly affected by the post ever contacted her. The first complaint, she said, came from Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, who asked her to delete the post, citing concerns for the student’s safety and a longstanding political custom of avoiding public mention of minors. In a February 18 letter, Fecteau warned: “In addition to risking the young person’s safety, your post violates one of the long-held political traditions of ‘leaving kids out of it’—a tradition that has even been observed by political pundits with regard to the treatment of kids who are in the White House, the most scrutinized office in the nation.” Fecteau later told Libby her punishment could be lifted if she issued an apology. She refused. Instead, Libby took the matter to court, challenging the censure as unconstitutional. After Maine judges recused themselves, the case was handled by Rhode Island US District Judge Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee, who ruled against Libby. That decision was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Libby escalated her case to the Supreme Court in April. In defending the censure, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey argued that the legislature’s action was about upholding procedural integrity, not muzzling beliefs. He stated the censure required Libby to apologize for her “conduct,” not her opinion, and emphasized her refusal to comply with House Rule 401(11), which bars members found in breach of decorum from participating in House proceedings until they “make satisfaction,” defined here as issuing an apology. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Supreme Court Overturns Maine’s Censure of Rep. Laurel Libby in Free Speech Ruling Over Trans Athlete Post appeared first on Reclaim The Net.