Disinformation Disarray: EU’s Desperate Battle against Musk’s Free Speech

Text to speech

In the dystopian realm of the European Union (EU), where the echoes of George Orwell’s 1984 reverberate through the corridors of power, a tempest is brewing. The EU officials, clad in their authoritarian armor, are throwing a monumental fit because Elon Musk, the audacious CEO of Twitter, has dared to withdraw from their “voluntary” code of conduct for combatting the mythical menace of “disinformation.” Oh, the horror! The EU, ever vigilant in their pursuit of control, has yet to produce a single tangible example of this so-called disinformation.


EU Internal Markets Commissioner Thierry Breton, assuming the role of a stern principal reprimanding an unruly schoolchild, tweeted with a hint of menace, “You can run, but you can’t hide,” referring to an alleged legal obligation to combat disinformation. How noble of them. Breton’s French counterpart, Digital Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, even threatened to banish Twitter from the EU, citing the “grave” threat of disinformation. Bravo, Jean-Noel, your commitment to protecting the fragile minds of EU citizens from free expression is truly inspiring.


In their fervour to control the narrative, the EU seems to have adopted the concept of pre-crime from the movie ‘Minority Report.’ They seek to extend their authoritarian arm, regardless of geographical boundaries, and impose their “Code of Practice on Disinformation,” concocted in 2018 and revised last year, on tech giants like Musk who refuse to bend the knee.


Not content with mere rhetoric, Breton, the self-proclaimed enforcer of EU law, plans to embark on a pilgrimage to Silicon Valley to keep a watchful eye on these rebellious tech behemoths. After all, who better to ensure compliance than a bureaucrat with a penchant for power?


One can’t help but ponder the delightful prospect of Mr. Enforcer being humbled by the very people he claims to represent. And who better to deliver this humbling blow than Musk, the champion of Twitter as a platform for true free expression, a voice for the people?


Musk’s withdrawal from the EU’s code is merely a ripple in a growing trend. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has already parted ways with its army of moderators. Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and other tech giants have also trimmed their watchdog departments, citing cost-cutting measures. It appears that policing narratives isn’t particularly good for business.


But let us pause and ponder: if joining the EU’s pact is optional, why the fuss? Is there any guarantee that the signatories are genuinely combating what the EU deems as disinformation? The very notion of top-down information control raises suspicion about the marginalization of dissenting views and debates that challenge the establishment narrative. According to the EU code, tech platforms must collaborate with fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations approved by the EU, reporting their efforts to an EU “Code Taskforce.” One can’t help but wonder if these actors may inadvertently become enforcers and gatekeepers of the establishment’s narrative.


Musk himself is well-acquainted with the insidious collusion between state actors and platforms, stifling contradictory debates and hindering the free flow of information. His release of the Twitter Files uncovered the collusion between Twitter and Western government authorities, manipulating and censoring public discourse surrounding topics like Covid-19 and geopolitics, all in the name of combating “disinformation.”


And now, the EU’s vice president for values and transparency, with an Orwellian title to match, Vera Jourova, emerges from the shadows to suggest that Russia is the ultimate beneficiary of Musk’s withdrawal. Ah, yes, every dissenting view and inconvenient fact must surely originate from the land of the bears. The EU’s reasoning is just a step away from labeling Musk as Russia’s useful idiot, conveniently ignoring his substantial connections with the Pentagon.


Musk’s audacious move to reject the EU’s provisions stems from the stark divergence between their code and his unwavering dedication to the principles of free speech. However, the EU, with its boundless wisdom, persists in disregarding the sanctity of private ownership. If they yearn to reshape online platforms into public utilities, they should dip into their own deep coffers and fashion them into fire-spewing conduits of propaganda—only then will they witness a mass exodus of users fleeing in horror.


Contrary to the EU’s insinuations, Musk is not a laissez-faire purveyor of fake news. Instead, he has devised an alternative fact-checking system that goes beyond the capabilities of mundane bureaucrats. When Musk assumed control of Twitter, he replaced some moderators with a feature called “Community Notes,” allowing users to contribute real-time corrections or clarifications to factually incorrect or misleading content. How arrogant must the EU be to believe that a man who builds rockets and revolutionizes the automotive industry couldn’t devise a more effective fact-checking mechanism?


As this row between Twitter and the EU rages on, the platform itself has become a cauldron of discussion. It breeds comments that Western officials would rather keep hidden from the average person’s gaze. But under Musk’s helm, they find themselves powerless, resorting to empty threats and name-calling. The budding authoritarians in the EU can only watch helplessly as their grip on control slips away.

Leave a Comment