If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online. Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive. The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room. Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X. Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe. The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic? Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room. Coleman sees the DSA not as a minor technical tweak to the way platforms moderate content, but as a structural shift in how speech is treated under European law. “The internet is the frontline of this assault on free speech in Europe, particularly through the Digital Services Act,” he said. He also questioned whether the law can even be squared with existing human rights obligations.  He said it was his “strong view” that “it is not”. Stephen Bartulica, a Croatian MEP, took aim at what he sees as the DSA’s most dangerous feature: the vague and politically elastic nature of “hate speech.” In his view, the category has become so malleable that it could plausibly stretch to include something as basic as quoting religious scripture, depending entirely on the prevailing ideological winds. He wasn’t being hypothetical. One of the central cases highlighted at the event was that of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen. In 2019, she posted a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality. Since then, she’s faced criminal prosecution for alleged “hate speech, ”and even after being acquitted twice, her case is now heading to Finland’s Supreme Court. “Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse… She was criminally prosecuted… and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials,” Coleman explained. “But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again…she faces trial for posting online.” To the attendees, her case offered a cautionary tale: that laws designed to rein in online hate can easily be stretched to silence political or religious speech, depending on who’s interpreting the rules. One of the under-discussed aspects of the DSA is how it allows enforcement in one country to spill into others. If a post is flagged in one member state, that judgment can ripple across the EU. “If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place,” Coleman warned. It’s a subtle shift with major implications. A court ruling in Helsinki could, in theory, affect content moderation decisions in Lisbon or Warsaw. The borderless internet meets a borderless enforcement regime. Rod Dreher laid the charge bare: JD Vance doesn’t hate Europe; he hates the suits running it into the digital equivalent of East Berlin. “Of course” Vance doesn’t hate Europe, Dreher told the crowd, “he loves it enough to speak the truth about its censorship crisis.” A rather diplomatic way of saying that sometimes, a friend has to tell you you have spinach stuck in your teeth, or when your continental regulatory machine is veering uncomfortably close to ideological groupthink. Dreher didn’t stop at pleasantries. He made it clear that what Vance opposes isn’t Europe itself, but the censorial ruling class propped up by the very institutions now portraying themselves as guardians of freedom. According to Dreher, elites are less interested in addressing widespread dissatisfaction than in banning the words people use to express it. “Elites would prefer to suppress discussion of discontent and its sources,” he said, labeling such discussion “hate speech” whenever it threatens to puncture the grand illusion of managed progress. He wasn’t quoting think-tank PowerPoints or EU strategy papers. He turned to Soviet dissidents, the people who wrote about living under regimes that made speech a privilege instead of a right. In today’s version, Dreher warned, the West is dressing up censorship in soft language, selling it as protection rather than punishment. His advice: don’t participate in the charade. “Refuse to participate in any event where one cannot speak the truth… Prepare to suffer for the truth.” While Dreher offered the philosophical grounding, Paul Coleman came up with the legal blueprint. He dissected the DSA, clause by clause, right down to its compatibility (or lack thereof) with Europe’s own founding charters. “It is thankfully the case that freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” he said. But those guarantees aren’t decorative. They come with a condition: any limit on speech has to be necessary, proportionate, and justified in a democratic society. He outlined real steps to challenge the law. “Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union,” Coleman said, a legal process that could strike down the DSA in whole or in part if it’s found to clash with the EU Charter or foundational treaties. Then there’s the DSA’s mandatory review, coming in mid-November, which he called a critical moment for resistance. “It is imperative that every opportunity is taken… to raise concerns about the censorial impact of the DSA,” he said. He urged lawmakers to submit questions to the European Commission, publicly challenge the legislation, and demand that Commissioner Henna Virkkunen answer for the law she champions. “After all, if the Commissioner is as in favor of freedom of expression as she claims to be, why would she refuse?” It was a challenge dressed in diplomacy, but the undertone was unmistakable. Coleman also stressed the importance of bringing civil society, digital rights groups, and tech companies into the room, not just for show, but because they understand the terrain better than the bureaucrats drawing the map. “They can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue,” he said, turning the usual technocratic lip service into a direct appeal for collaboration. But perhaps his most important message was aimed at the people in the room, and those they represent. “As elected representatives of your people, you are also in an excellent position to bring the public’s attention to the grave risks to free speech posed by the DSA,” he said. “The truth is that every single European’s rights are jeopardized by this legislation.” The threat, as he framed it, is already working its way through legal systems and social platforms. And unless enough people start asking uncomfortable questions, it will become a normalized policy. “The more the public is aware of and speaks out about this,” Coleman concluded, “the more pressure the Commission will feel. And the more likely we are to defeat this law.” The event was never going to immediately change the minds of Brussels’ most dedicated speech regulators, the ones who believe liberty is a PR term and not a principle. But it did something arguably more important: it forced the discussion into the open, in plain terms, and without the usual euphemisms. There were voices from across borders and political traditions, not saying “be careful,” but saying “pay attention.” As Bartulica, Dreher, and Coleman made clear, the only thing standing between a managed internet and a free one is whether anyone still has the courage to call censorship by its name. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A sweeping transformation of the UK’s identity systems is underway, with the government poised to launch a digital identity wallet this summer. Beginning with a digital version of the Veteran card and expanding to include driving licenses later this year, the initiative is designed to eventually consolidate all government-issued credentials into a single, centralized app by 2027. While pitched as a modernization effort, this dramatic shift toward a digital-first ID system has sparked serious concerns about surveillance, data security, and individual autonomy in an increasingly watchful society. More: Experts Sound Alarm on EU Digital Identity Wallets: User Controls; Mask Dangerous Data Oversharing Risks To enroll in the system, users will be expected to provide personal documentation. The Gov.uk Wallet, as it is known, represents a fundamental redesign of the relationship between the state and its citizens. This overhaul comes at a time when nearly 50 million people across the UK could be affected by the new digital infrastructure. While specific instructions on how to apply for or access the wallet have yet to be detailed, the direction is clear: the UK is moving toward a society where physical IDs may soon be relics of the past. The government frames the change as part of its larger digitization strategy, yet the scale and permanence of eventual biometric data collection call into question the long-term implications for individual freedoms. The introduction of digital driving licenses has also been tied to broader regulatory reforms, including newly proposed rules for e-scooter purchases. Buyers will need to provide license details as a form of identity verification, reinforcing the idea that access to everyday services will increasingly hinge on digital ID systems. This entrenchment of digital identity into daily life carries substantial consequences: it embeds surveillance mechanisms into transportation, access to benefits, and public services in ways that may be difficult to reverse. Government advisers and planning experts have largely welcomed the changes, arguing that they could expedite approval processes and streamline development workflows. Labour MPs have voiced their backing for a nationwide digital ID initiative, marking a growing cross-party consensus on the issue. Yet this political alignment offers little reassurance to those wary of centralizing identity and biometric data in a manner that could pave the way for future abuses. More: UK Government and Tony Blair Back AI-Powered Surveillance Push Including Digital ID and Facial Recognition While proponents of the Gov.uk Wallet emphasize efficiency and modern convenience, privacy advocates warn that such benefits come with steep trade-offs. Digital identity systems are attractive targets for cyberattacks, and the permanence of biometric data means any breach could have lifelong consequences. Once data collection becomes standardized, it opens the door for function creep, where the original purpose of digital ID gradually expands into new domains of monitoring and control. UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) spokesman confirms that its digital ID wallet is coming this summer, with the first credential being a digital Veteran card and digital driving licenses arriving later this year. The UK government also plans to have every other credential issued by the government to be added to its digital ID wallet by the end of 2027. Users of this digital ID wallet will need to upload relevant documents and complete facial recognition features available on most smartphones. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The UK’s Digital ID Era Starts This Summer 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 by Ofcom and anti-discrimination group Kick It Out has thrown its weight behind a growing campaign to restrict online speech in the UK, even when that speech breaks no laws. Backed by the government and tied to powers granted under the Online Safety Act, the document marks a significant moment in the institutional push to transform what is currently legal expression into material subject to moderation, suppression, and even criminal investigation. It’s a move that would have been politically unthinkable a decade ago. Today, it’s being packaged as harm reduction. The most striking aspect of the report is how explicitly it acknowledges the legality of much of the content it targets. It doesn’t claim that current laws are inadequate in tackling actual hate speech or criminal abuse. Instead, it argues that lawful content, opinions, statements, or commentary that some users might find offensive, ought to be suppressed anyway. The authors present this as a moral imperative. Content that might “normalize” harmful behavior or “offend” certain communities, even when fully within legal bounds, is framed as dangerous. The report calls for stronger moderation tools, more aggressive enforcement, and deeper intervention from tech platforms. The implication is that legality is no longer the standard, perceived harm is. This shift is more than semantic. It reflects an ideological transformation in how speech is treated online: less as a right, and more as a privilege to be conditioned on social acceptability. Throughout the report, there’s a persistent conflation between criminal activity and mere controversy. The distinction between unlawful hate speech and legally protected, albeit unpleasant, commentary is muddied. The end result is a framework that sees all negative speech, particularly speech involving race, religion, or sexuality, as inherently harmful and in need of control. “Some participants hoped that if the police started taking action against hate and abuse online, this would send a message,” the report states, in what reads more like a policy recommendation than a casual observation. That this so-called “hate and abuse” is often legal does not appear to be a problem for the authors. Instead, it’s a justification for expanding law enforcement’s role in the digital realm. What the report ultimately calls for is a system in which speech that is legally protected is nevertheless treated as if it were criminal, not by the courts, but by private companies under regulatory pressure. Among the recommendations are platform-level interventions: turning off comment sections, using third-party moderation services, and automating the identification and removal of “harmful” content. These interventions are framed not as options, but as obligations for companies that wish to comply with emerging standards under the Online Safety Act. Crucially, Ofcom, now the lead regulator under that Act, signals its willingness to develop codes of practice that would pressure platforms into enforcing rules beyond what the law requires. In effect, this turns Ofcom from a regulatory body into a speech governance authority, with no clear limits. The broader implications of this report cannot be ignored. What began as an effort to address clear-cut online harms, harassment, abuse, and criminal threats, is now morphing into a campaign to govern tone, attitude, and political expression. Kick It Out, an organization once focused on combating racial abuse in football, has become a key advocate for expanding these new powers. It has lobbied for censorship mechanisms to be enshrined in law, and this report forms part of that larger campaign. Far from being a neutral study of online behavior, it reads as a policy document meant to entrench a new norm: one in which platforms are expected to police public discourse according to criteria that go far beyond the law. This is not a slippery slope argument. It’s already happening. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Regulator and “Kick It Out” Report Calls for Policing and Censorship of Legal Online Speech 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. Trump Media & Technology Group Corp has announced a major expansion of its streaming service Truth+, bringing its full library of live and on-demand content to Roku TVs, as well as Samsung connected TVs manufactured since 2022 and LG connected TVs. The update marks a significant step in the platform’s rollout and reflects its broader strategy to offer alternatives to mainstream media and Big Tech-controlled platforms. Truth+, is operated by the same company behind the social media platform Truth Social and the upcoming financial services brand Truth.Fi, describes itself as a destination for “family-friendly programming” aimed at Americans seeking a different perspective on news, entertainment, and culture. The streaming service features a mix of live television, faith-based content, weather updates, documentaries, and opinion-driven shows, alongside a growing video-on-demand library. Available across major devices including iOS, Android, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and web browsers, Truth+ continues to build out its cross-platform accessibility. Connected TV users can now download the Truth+ app directly from their device’s app store and sign in using either a QR code, passcode, or their Truth Social credentials. As digital audiences grow more segmented and skeptical of mainstream news and entertainment providers, platforms like Truth+ are tapping into a demand for ideologically distinct and independently hosted media. Trump Media describes its offering as an alternative to “biased news channels,” and the content library reflects that positioning. The platform’s programming aims to resonate with audiences who feel underserved or misrepresented by larger networks. Truth+ is built on a custom-designed, multi-site Content Delivery Network (CDN), using proprietary servers, routers, and software. Trump Media states that this infrastructure allows the platform to operate independently from third-party tech providers, reducing the risk of service disruption or censorship. Advanced features include live TV rewind with visual thumbnails, seven-day catch-up viewing, network DVR capabilities, and a Spanish-language interface option. The company says it is currently in the beta phase of the rollout and is collecting user feedback as it scales up operations. Truth+ is one component of Trump Media’s larger push into digital services. Alongside its flagship social platform and the forthcoming financial tech brand Truth.Fi, the company is aiming to build an ecosystem that supports free expression and ideological diversity across multiple sectors. TMTG’s stated mission is to “end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the internet and giving people their voices back.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Trump Media’s Truth+ Expands to More Devices in Alternative Media Push appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

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.