EPISODE 1/4: “Regulation”, censorship by another name

01/09/2021 · Colin Meier

Presented under the name of “regulation”, censorship in fact hovered constantly over the meeting. A suspicion confirmed by the attitude of almost all the speakers, who at one point or another felt the need to defend themselves against it, at least formally, but never thought of giving up this extension of their power.

A nauseating conflation

Vice-President Jourová thus admits to having already experienced both disinformation and Soviet censorship. That is why, according to her, it will be necessary to be vigilant not to drift towards “the single truth”. But if this balance seems so difficult to maintain, why not simply refrain from legislative proposals such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) ^{[1], [2]}, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) ^{[3], [4]} or the European Democracy Action Plan ^{[5], [6]}? In her view, these texts have nothing to do with censorship (although they resemble its official definition ^[7]) because, on the contrary, they are paved with good intentions. Like hell.

That, incidentally, is where Ms Jourová’s remarks lead, as she even suggests a conflation between conspiracy theories and clearly illegal content (e.g. the dissemination of child pornography). By insisting that one is already illegal but not the other, she implies the need to make illegal (and therefore to censor) all content that would fall into the vast catch-all basket of “conspiracy theories”. Content characterised first and foremost by a critical approach to power that is too disturbing.

Where are the victims?

All this is underlined by a tearful moralising stance along the lines of “We are doing it for you and for the common good. We are doing it in the name of the victims. We have a duty to save lives.” Towards the end of the webinar, Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), takes the floor, says he is very concerned about the dangers of disinformation and presents himself as the spokesperson for its victims. At one point he hides behind a list of victims that are genuine (such as the Muslim community of Christ Church) and sprinkles it with alleged victims (e.g. people not vaccinated against covid-19).

The aim is clear: to seize the opportunity of the covid-19 crisis to insinuate, here too, an equivalence between the different victims and thus suggest the reality of the status of victims for the latter through the reality of that status for the former. By invoking an image of real victims, the public will be more likely to accept that unvaccinated people are victims too.

Conversely, he implicitly says that the covid-19 vaccines are not only effective but life-saving. Any other opinion would be disinformation potentially harmful to others, a claim he reinforces with his feigned disgust at the enormous profits of the GAFAM ^[8]. Does it not seem somewhat hypocritical to him to shed crocodile tears over the profits of the GAFAM, when the CCDH’s directors include Thomas Conrad Lewis “Tom” Brookes ^{[9], [10]}, a former lobbyist and spokesperson for the companies Microsoft ^[11] and Apple ^[12] at the time of the EU’s antitrust investigations against them ^[13]. Playing on public indignation on these two points and suggesting that there is a causal link, he creates both a cognitive and an emotional link, very difficult to undo, intended to make people accept the censorship of any statement that could create “potential victims”.

Biased and partial information

Ahmed is careful not to give all the information concerning the covid vaccines, in particular that the phase III studies are not even finished yet^[14] and that these are therefore conditional marketing authorisations ^{[15], [16]}, that the control groups have been vaccinated ^{[17], [18]}, that the covid-19 vaccines show more side effects than others ^{[19], [20]}, that favourable benefit-risk ratios have not yet been established, especially for those under 45 and regarding long-term side effects ^{[21], [22], [23]}, and that the vaccines could be ineffective against the famous variants, or even counterproductive, as shown by the emergence of variants in certain countries very advanced in vaccination ^{[24], [25]}.

Should Mr Ahmed possibly be wrong, would he himself be prepared to be censored and to bear his share of responsibility (including legal responsibility) for the victims of serious vaccine-related side effects ^{[26], [27], [28], [29]}, caused by a “vaccination incentive campaign” in which he will have knowingly participated and which is anything but a transparent information campaign on the part of the public authorities and the pharmaceutical industry ^{[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]}, the latter having, moreover, made sure that it would not have to compensate victims ^{[37], [38], [39]}?

Cobbled-together but influential reports

Given Mr Ahmed’s bias, one may doubt it, just as one may doubt that he acts independently and without preconceptions. What, in any case, can one expect from a CCDH that, in the context of the covid-19 crisis, organises the campaign #DontSpreadtheVirus endorsed by the British government^[40]? In its appeal for donations to continue its “anti-anti-vaxx” campaign, the CCDH even admits to being supported by the British government and the City of London ^[41]. Their influence can be felt in the various “reports” such as The Anti-Vaxx Playbook ^[42], The Anti-Vaxx Industry ^[43], The Disinformation Dozen ^[44] or Failure to Act ^[45].

One might expect the CCDH to produce in-depth reports on a phenomenon, supporting the relevance of their analysis by demonstrating an intrinsic logic, and the relevance of their recommendations (sometimes as long as the investigations themselves) with arguments. Alas, these reports are more reminiscent of a schoolchild’s patchwork of screenshots, lists of facts, disparate tweets and raw statistics without analysis.

In The Anti-Vaxx Industry, for example, we read that the CCDH has calculated at $1 billion the economic value that the “anti-vaxx industry” supposedly represents for social networks. This amount is not even demonstrated but put forward in the conditional, because the number of “anti-vaxx” users of each platform is multiplied in a rather simplistic way by the platform’s average advertising revenue, and nothing proves that these averages apply to “anti-vaxxers”. In any case, this amount seems laughable compared with the nearly $290 billion of total annual revenue for 2020 of Google (including YouTube), Facebook (including Instagram) and Twitter. Peanuts, in other words. Likewise, the count of 59 million (in 2020) “anti-vaxx” followers on these 4 platforms is supposed to impress and suggest a danger, but it is in fact nothing compared with the 5.8 billion (in 2020) users of these 4 platforms ^[46].

Despite the simplicity, even the mediocrity, of their reports, their influence is enormous, reaching as far as the White House, whose press secretary, Jen Psaki, cited on 16 July 2021 the CCDH’s Disinformation Dozen report ^{[47], [48]} to justify censoring “disinformation” on all social networks: “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation out there.” ^[49] Bad luck for the CCDH: Facebook found that things were more complex and that reducing the problem to just 12 people was a fallacious argument ^[50]!

Zero tolerance for contradictory views

Let us be clear: on covid-19, vaccines and disinformation, as on any other subject, these reports question nothing, but simply repeat the official narrative and its pre-established framework of discussion: covid-19 is dangerous and kills, vaccines are always good, and any contradictory statement is automatically to be considered disinformation and deserves to be sanctioned as such. They apply their own advice wonderfully, such as not even engaging in discussion, because discussing it would be advertising information considered to be disinformation.

The CCDH and organisations of the same kind provide the censors with a golden alibi: an apparent independence and seriousness behind which they can shelter. A fig leaf hiding censorship, in short.

It will therefore come as no surprise that one of the CCDH’s directors, the British Conservative MP Damian Collins ^[51], openly argued ^[52] for “anti-vaxx” conspiracy theories to be legally designated as harmful and for digital platforms to be legally obliged to remove them proactively, while harping on Pfizer and Moderna’s marketing trick of 90% to 95% efficacy (since exposed ^[53]). He called for a law that would designate a catalogue of specific content as harmful and would oblige platforms to act proactively against it. His remarks, prophetic to say the least, came, however, at a time (mid-November 2020) when phase III trials had only begun two months earlier and no vaccine had yet been authorised, not even conditionally.

With Magritte, one could conclude that this is not censorship, of course.

By Colin Meier, independent citizen journalist and correspondent for Germany at BAM!

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en, e.g.: “(46) Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms […] Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’); or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi-public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online.”

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

[4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=1608116887159&uri=COM%3A2020%3A842%3AFIN

[5] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2250

[6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A790%3AFIN&qid=1607079662423

[7] https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/censure/14086

[8] Acronym for the internet giants combined: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft

[9] https://www.counterhate.com/our-people

[10] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11633127/officers

[11] https://www.politico.eu/person/tom-brookes/

[12] https://www.linkedin.com/in/tobrookes/

[13] https://europeanclimate.org/member/tom-brookes/

[14] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf p. 97