If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. When the European Commission goes to war, it doesn’t send tanks. It dispatches compliance officers with angry emails and billion-dollar fines. The European Union’s eurocrats’s next target is Elon Musk’s social media fixer-upper, X. According to the New York Times, four anonymous whisperers from inside the EU machine say the bloc is loading up a billion-dollar bazooka aimed squarely at X, citing violations of their shiny new Digital Services Act, the latest attempt to regulate speech by committee. And what better way to showcase the importance of online civility than by dragging the world’s loudest billionaire into court? The DSA, which was sold to the public as a digital hygiene law to make the internet a kinder, gentler place, has become a blunt instrument in the hands of bureaucrats who never met a control lever they didn’t want to pull. They’ve apparently decided that Musk’s flavor of digital chaos — too many unregulated opinions, not enough “fact-checking,” and a stubborn refusal to grovel — is a clear and present danger to the European project. Among X’s alleged crimes against the algorithmic gods: refusing to hand over data to “independent researchers” (friendly academics who publish pro-censorship PDFs no one reads), hiding the secrets behind those little blue check marks, and failing to spill the tea on who’s advertising to whom. Naturally, this has prompted Brussels to threaten a fine that could “top $1 billion,” a figure clearly pulled from the same place all government fines originate — an angry dartboard. One idea floating through the regulatory fog? That if X itself can’t pay up, maybe SpaceX can. Because when you’re short on jurisdiction, why not go fishing in another company’s wallet? Of course, none of this is happening in a vacuum. As US–EU relations circle the drain — thanks to tariffs, Ukraine, and now Trump 2.0 criticizing international censorship demands — Brussels wants to make clear this action is totally unrelated to broader geopolitics. The timing reeks of old-fashioned power politics dressed up in GDPR-scented legalese. The EU insists its laws are enforced “fairly and without discrimination,” which is what they always say before aiming the legislative cannon at Silicon Valley and lighting the fuse with a French match. Musk, in typical Musk fashion, responded to the EU’s preliminary ruling last year with the digital equivalent of “bring it on.” He promised “a very public battle in court.” And it’s not hard to see why he’s relishing the fight. The EU wants centralized moderation, algorithmic babysitters, and data transparency so aggressive it makes Chinese regulators blush. X, on the other hand, has adopted the philosophy of moderate little, regret less. That’s a bold stance in a world where a rogue tweet can get you banned in six languages. Behind the scenes, X has reportedly dumped “hundreds of counterarguments” onto the EU’s desk. But Brussels, not known for its flexibility, seems unimpressed. They’re about as open to negotiation as a vending machine that ate your coins. Meanwhile, back in Washington, lawmakers are beginning to catch on. A February memo from the White House muttered something about “unfair burdens,” which is Washingtonese for why are our companies always getting slapped around while China’s Huawei builds smart cities in peace? Days later, the US announced new tariffs, hinting that Brussels might want to tread lightly before it regulates America out of patience. This is about control. About who gets to shape the public square: elected officials and their tech-literate assistants, or a meme-loving CEO who thinks free speech includes letting people challenge authority alongside cat gifs. The answer will come soon enough. But if the EU thinks a billion-dollar fine and a few regulatory demands are going to turn Musk into a compliant digital landlord, they haven’t been paying attention. Musk sees himself as the messiah of digital discourse, and Brussels? Well, they still think fines are a persuasive form of poetry. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Targets Elon Musk’s X with Potential $1 Billion Fine Under Censorship Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Nina Jankowicz – former head of the disbanded Disinformation Governance Board and CEO of the American Sunlight Project – and Democrats who this week spoke during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, continued to deny and defend the Big Tech-government censorship collusion. The hearing – “Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Need for First Amendment Safeguards at the State Department” – also saw Jankowicz, who appeared as a witness, and Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat, attempt to paint the actions taken by the new Trump White House as worse that what was happening during the previous US administration. Both Jankowicz and Kamlager-Dove referred to the system known as the Censorship-Industrial Complex, and its elements, as “fiction,” “lies,” “tall tales,” and, “a conspiracy theory,” with Jankowicz trying to frame the new government’s moves as “an assault on the First Amendment” and “suppressing speech.” Despite the fact these are some of the key accusations against the Biden administration – and at this point, fairly well backed up by batches of internal documents, but also testimonies from Big Tech execs – Jankowicz chose to call it “the imagined actions of the Biden administration.” As for her own role in this “imagined” system – namely, the brief stint at the helm of the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board (that was part of the Department of Homeland Security) – Jankowicz maintained that it was not meant to be a censorship body. Instead, Jankowicz would have the Committee and the public believe the Board was true to its mission statement, which was “to protect civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and the First Amendment.” (DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also had a reasonable mission statement – to protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks – only to then, according to the findings of the House Judiciary Committee, switch to surveillance and censorship of Americans’ online speech.) Jankowicz tried to dismiss the validity, and value of the Twitter Files, which have proven to be crucial in shedding light on the inner workings of the “fictitious” Censorship-Industrial Complex. But to her mind, the Twitter Files are “almost endless fiction” and, somehow – “a conspiracy.” Another place where “no censorship was going on” was the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard from Jankowicz. And, she doesn’t detect any problems with the scandalous actions taken by the former government to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, suggesting that Twitter “adding friction” resulted in “more views.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democrats, Former Disinfo Board Chief, Defend Government-Big Tech Ties, Dismiss Censorship-Industrial Complex at House Hearing on First Amendment Safeguards appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The EU is once again looking for a way to undermine end-to-end encryption in the name of strengthening law enforcement capabilities, this time via a new strategy, ProtectEU. The internal security strategy, announced this week by the EU Commission, is presented as a “vision and workplan” that will span a number of years but stops short of making concrete policy proposals. A press release asserts that the current geopolitical environment is one of “growing” threats from hostile states, and mentions powerful criminal groups and terrorists who are “operating increasingly online” – as well as “surging cybercrime and attacks against our critical infrastructure.” With the threat elements defined in this way, the EU’s new strategy focuses on six areas, one of them being “more effective tools for law enforcement” – which is where online encryption comes under attack. When it describes how the groundwork might be laid for mandating encryption backdoors, the EU chooses to use euphemisms such as creating roadmaps for “lawful and effective access to data for law enforcement” and seeking “technological solutions for accessing encrypted data.” A technology roadmap on encryption would allow for these “solutions” to be found. The EU is not alone in searching for mechanisms to, eventually, legislate against encryption, but these initiatives are invariably met with warnings from both tech companies and civil rights and privacy advocates. The key issue is that encryption provides both for private communications (which is what law enforcement wants access to) and also the technical security of those communications, financial transactions, etc. The new EU strategy promises that cybersecurity and fundamental rights will be protected as a future encryption backdoor is implemented. But this is not a promise anyone can make, considering that once there, a backdoor is effectively available to all actors, including those hostile states and non-state actors the EU purports its strategy is there to protect against. Other prominent points contained in ProtectEU include increased intelligence sharing between member countries and the bloc’s Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC) – as a way to “anticipate” security threats. Yet another centralization effort is the idea to give EU’s law enforcement agency EUROPOL more powers, including around cross-border and large-scale investigations, in the process making it “a truly operational police agency.” This is followed by reassuring member countries that the purpose is to “reinforce support” to them. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post European Commission Revives Push for Encryption Backdoors in ProtectEU Strategy, Framing Mass Surveillance as “Lawful Access” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post When One Island Demands to Muzzle the World appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant interim relief to social media company X in its legal bid to resist India’s demand for mandatory participation in the Sahyog portal — a centralized government platform for issuing content removal directives. X took the matter to court after the Indian government insisted that it register on the Sahyog system, launched by the Union Home Ministry in 2024. While the state claims the portal merely facilitates compliance with existing legal norms, X has called it out as a tool that allows censorship to bypass judicial oversight. The court’s ruling came Thursday, as reported by Bar and Bench, with Justice M Nagaprasanna stating that X already has the option to return to court if it faces any direct government pressure, making interim protection unnecessary at this point. The Sahyog portal has rapidly become the government’s new digital mechanism for coordinating takedown orders, and more than a dozen large internet firms — including Google, Meta, Telegram, Amazon, Apple, and more — have already been added to its roster. But X has refused to comply without a fight. In its March 5 filing, the company argued that the portal circumvents the legal protections embedded in India’s existing content-blocking framework, namely Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. That provision requires the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to review and approve takedown orders, introducing a layer of accountability. By contrast, X contends, Sahyog enables officials to issue directives through Section 79(3)(b), a move that sidesteps these safeguards. During arguments, senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing X, insisted that any government directive to remove online content must follow the process established under Section 69A. “The interim prayer is innocuous. It does not affect adversely any concern expressed by the Union of India. The concern of the Union of India is legitimate—no one can say I won’t comply with the laws of this country. If you want to do business in this country, you have to comply. We are all on the same side, that nothing can be done which adversely affects the country…All we are saying is—the law is completely codified in Section 69A of the IT Act,” he said. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Indian Court Rejects X’s Plea Against Mandatory Censorship Portal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.