The Gatekeepers of Speech and the Disinformation Op

USAID and others actively working to stifle speech

The European Union’s Disinformation Code of Practice is often presented as a voluntary set of guidelines designed to combat the spread of disinformation on digital platforms. However, in reality, it functions more as a gatekeeper of speech, likely stifling discourse rather than “fostering transparency, reducing harmful content, or promoting media literacy.”

Initially introduced in 2018, now in compliance with the EU Digital Services Act, the Code has been updated multiple times and signed by major tech companies. Despite its intentions, critics argue that it poses a significant threat to free speech. Additionally, “The DSA carries significant financial penalties and enforcement actions against infringing companies, including potential sanctions of up to 6% of global annual sales or even a complete ban on operating in the EU single market for repeat offenders,” according to Protiviti.com

Over-Moderation Chills Speech

One of the biggest concerns about the EU's disinformation efforts is the potential for over-moderation of content. In an attempt to avoid penalties, tech companies might be inclined to remove content that could be legitimate expression. This could unintentionally lead to the censorship of satire, political speech, or well-meaning commentary. As platforms take a more proactive role in content policing, the risk grows that divergent voices—especially those critical of governments or corporations—could be silenced.

Since its inception, a wide range of tech companies, trade associations, advertising and digital marketing, and publishing associations have signed the Code. Major tech companies signed on including Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and TikTok. Notably, Twitter left the Code of Practice against disinformation when Musk bought the platform. Other key stakeholders include the European Publishers Council (EPC) and the European Standards Alliance (EASA).

Measures like these will likely harm speech. Individuals could grow hesitant to express unpopular opinions, fearing that their content might be flagged, removed, or their accounts suspended. This "chilling effect" can stifle open debate, discouraging the sharing of dissenting views,–vital in a healthy society.

The responsibility to enforce a disinformation code falls largely on the tech companies themselves, which are given the power to decide what constitutes disinformation. This positions tech companies as gatekeepers of information, raising significant concerns about corporate influence over public discourse.

The profit motive drives Big Tech, so companies may prioritize the removal of content that challenges their business interests, rather than focusing solely on disinformation.

The voluntary nature of the code and the lack of binding legal enforcement are also problematic. Although the EU is moving towards more formal regulation with laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the voluntary code leaves room for interpretation and inconsistent enforcement. Ambiguity can contribute to self-censorship and inconsistent protection of free speech.

The process of defining disinformation is inherently subjective and vulnerable to political and ideological biases. Governments and political groups can and have exerted pressure on tech companies to remove content they deem harmful, potentially suppressing unpopular or politically inconvenient views. The balance between combating disinformation and protecting political speech is precarious, and there is a real risk that certain political voices will be disproportionately silenced under the guise of curbing falsehoods.

There is also the concern that disinformation laws and codes like the EU’s could be used by authoritarian governments to control public discourse. A government-backed framework for regulating online content could be misused to target political dissidents, journalists, and activists, thus undermining citizens’ ability to question authority or hold governments accountable.

Independent media outlets, particularly those offering alternative perspectives, are also at risk. If their narratives conflict with dominant political or corporate agendas, they could be flagged as purveyors of disinformation. This could limit access to diverse viewpoints and create a more homogenous media landscape, undermining critical reporting on government actions, corporate misconduct, or social issues.

Speech Not Free in Britain

The erosion of free speech is arguably a slippery slope with real-world consequences. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the leader of the ruling Labour Party, has been accused of overzealously removing free speech protections if they might incite violence or hatred.

For example, the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for prosecutions in England and Wales (CPS) recently warned UK citizens to “think before you post” or CPS “will prosecute when the legal test is met.” And then even more recently on Wednesday, CPS posted that it sentenced “a man who left a grossly offensive voice message for Naz Shah MP” to 12 weeks in prison and was suspended for 18 months. He was also given a five-year restraining order.

In the U.S., we saw similar patterns of censoring during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. There was significant coordination between Big Tech and government entities to suppress independent reporting through censorship and speech suppression. The consequences of this collaboration were profound, influencing public health, the outcome of the election, and overall public discourse.

USAID and Atlantic Council: “Weapons of Mass Deletion”

USAID and the USAID-funded Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) have played a significant role in shaping the EU Digital Services Act. Mike Benz, an expert on censorship, has been instrumental in unmasking the U.S. government’s involvement in the subversion of free speech. Benz refers to USAID and the Atlantic Council as “weapons of mass deletion.”

Benz also calls the taxpayer-funded USAID the “Truman Show” of government agencies. USAID is a CIA cut-out that is secretive, complex, and corrupt. USAID and the Atlantic Council are two of the many entities wielding influence, from Capitol Hill to the corridors of power in nearly every government worldwide. This week and last, DOGE has unearthed much of the corruption in USAID, creating a great deal of clarity around the D.C. politicians who are most likely involved in the grift.

USAID’s role in the disinformation landscape is significant because its actions have affected online speech not only in Europe but also in the U.S. In 2021, USAID released its Disinformation Primer, a guide aimed at helping governments and other stakeholders address the “problem” of disinformation and its implications for democracy.

The experts who contributed to this primer defined disinformation as “an ‘information disorder,’ a phenomenon where truth and facts coexist within a sea of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, lies, propaganda, and half-truths.” They also equated disinformation with major global challenges like climate change and poverty, calling it a “core challenge for democracy, rights, and governance promotion.”

These experts also argued that disinformation is responsible for the “demise of traditional journalism business models” and “contributes to political polarization.” However, the public is not buying into this narrative. While traditional media continues to lose viewership, independent media has flourished, signaling what could be seen as a golden age of vibrant, albeit polarized, discourse. One thing is certain: free individuals do not want gatekeepers to control their speech. They are, without a doubt, suspicious of those who would attempt to dictate what is and isn’t true.

Whether framed as polarization or as robust debate, people are increasingly rejecting the idea that disinformation is an existential threat. Instead, the focus should be on safeguarding free speech and creating an environment where diverse voices—even those critical of governments and other power structures—can be heard.