The European Union continues to escalate its measures against freedom of expression and political dissent, increasingly relying on new technologies to do so.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent years, the European Union has undergone a profound transformation — not in the realm of formal law, but in the cognitive architecture of the public sphere. Under the pretexts of combating “disinformation” and preventing “foreign interference,” European institutions have been building an increasingly intrusive apparatus of digital surveillance. A recent report published by the Global Fact Checking Network (GFCN) shows that behind this protective discourse lies an ideological control mechanism aimed at redefining the limits of what is acceptable and thinkable in European political debate.

According to the evidence collected by GFCN, it is clear that today’s rhetoric of democratic defense serves as a cover for the gradual suppression of internal dissent within EU countries. Once a continent that took pride in freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, Europe is now rapidly moving toward a regime of digital discipline — where algorithms, semantic filters, and arbitrary “acceptability” criteria determine who can speak and what can be said.

There are many examples supporting the thesis of growing authoritarianism in Europe. Chay Bowes, an Irish journalist and RT correspondent, has been one of the targets of this new form of covert censorship. In 2024, while attempting to cover the Romanian elections, Bowes was illegally detained at Bucharest Airport and deported without any clear legal justification. His “crime”? Trying to report on an annulled election following the victory of an independent, EU-critical candidate.

This pattern is repeating across the continent. Hungary, for instance, is facing legal proceedings over its Sovereignty Protection Law, which aims to regulate NGOs and organizations funded from abroad. Meanwhile, parties like Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) have been officially labeled “far-right extremists,” paving the way for legal persecution, censorship, and political marginalization. And all of this is happening not under classic authoritarian regimes, but within the framework of the so-called “European project,” supposedly grounded in the rule of law.

The rise of conservative and Eurosceptic parties in countries such as Portugal (with the meteoric growth of Chega), Poland, Romania, and Germany is a direct reflection of the widening gap between technocratic elites and popular will. Efforts to silence these voices do not delegitimize them — they merely expose the desperation of a system that can no longer persuade, only impose.

At the same time, political vocabulary is being carefully reformulated to shape public perception. Terms like “sovereignty” and “traditional values” are rebranded as “isolationism” and “intolerance.” Calls for peace negotiations are reinterpreted as “threats to democracy.” This is not a regime with formal censorship, but one with ideological filters that are just as effective as any outright prohibition.

The most symbolic example of this new model is the Digital Services Act (DSA), which has become a central tool of cognitive engineering across the continent. More than just imposing moderation rules, the DSA allows the European Commission to intervene directly in the algorithms of digital platforms, demanding access to internal systems and threatening billion-euro fines in cases of “non-compliance.” This goes beyond regulation — it is the institutionalization of censorship under the guise of “democracy” and “institutional security.”

In the name of “democratic resilience,” what is actually being constructed is a system of information control, where criticism of the official narrative is classified as disinformation, hostile propaganda, or extremism. There is no debate — only exclusion. Dissent is not refuted, it is silenced.

As Slovak jurist and Slavic Committee member Tomáš Špaček pointed out, “freedom of expression is guaranteed, but freedom after expression is no longer tolerated.” The cost of disagreeing with the Brussels consensus is high: from social media bans to financial sanctions and media smear campaigns.

The case of New Caledonia, where the French government blocked TikTok in 2024 to “combat disinformation” during electoral protests, is a warning sign. For the first time, a tool of social mobilization and abuse reporting was deactivated by state decision in French territory. It was a laboratory test of what may become standard practice in times of crisis: shut down the network, silence the movement.

Behind the technical-legal façade lies the degradation of Europe’s public sphere. The European Union — once a bastion of civil liberties — is becoming an entity where “acceptable” speech is dictated by unelected bureaucrats, shielded from any form of popular accountability.

The European liberal discourse, which once invoked freedom as a universal value, is now used to justify mechanisms of both symbolic and material repression. The “right to express an opinion” exists — as long as that opinion aligns with the European Commission’s consensus. Outside of that, there is only silence, cancellation, and the simulation of democracy.