 |
Un journalisme exigeant demande du temps, des enquêtes approfondies et du travail, invisible et non rémunéré. Si nos articles vous sont utiles, votre abonnement est un vrai soutien. En retour, vous accéderez à des contenus exclusifs et participerez directement à l’indépendance de ce média.
Merci de votre fidélité.
La guerre numérique de Bruxelles
L'Union européenne est en guerre contre les Européens. Mais ses armes semblent bien factices.
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
S’il ne s’agit pas de censure, indirecte, par procuration - appelez-là comme vous voulez, nous à L’Eclaireur, nous ne savons pas comment la nommer. Dans un communiqué, la Commission européenne le confirme : les plates-formes ne se sont pas beaucoup fait prier pour supprimer ou modérer des contenus qui, sans que l’on sache trop pourquoi, n’avait pas eu lieu de l’être. Modérer à l’excès en arguant des conditions générales d’utilisation¹, afin de ne pas prendre le risque d’enquêtes et d’amendes prévues au DSA - et la Commission qui s’en félicite? La perversité de cette forme de censure est incommensurable.
L'Eclaireur est une lettre est une lettre par abonnement. Pour soutenir notre travail, choisissez le vôtre, libre ou payant.
D’autant que Bruxelles ne fait rien pour la prévenir et l’empêcher cette censure. S’il vise à interdire les contenus illégaux, le DSA n’interdit pas aux plates-formes de censurer les contenus licites.
“Le DSA ne répond pas aux défits actuels de la régulation de la communication numérique”, souligne l’ex-eurodéputé allemand Patrick Breyer particulièrement actif sur les questions de liberté d’expression et de données personnelles. “ Il peut même aggraver la situation. Il encourage l’utilisation de filtres de téléchargements sujets aux erreurs et d’autres instruments de surveillance et de contrôle privatisés des plates-formes.”...
Continuez la lecture de ce post gratuitement dans l'App Substack
| ||||||||||
© 2026 L'Eclaireur - Alpes
Directrice de la publication : Patricia Cerinsek
|
Un journalisme exigeant demande du temps, des enquêtes approfondies et du travail, invisible et non rémunéré. Si nos articles vous sont utiles, votre abonnement est un vrai soutien. En retour, vous accéderez à des contenus exclusifs et participerez directement à l’indépendance de ce média.
[ Editorial ] Brussels' Digital War
The European Union is at war against the 27 people of its member states. Wielding a water pistol.
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
The European Commission and Big Tech platforms are colluding in a form of indirect censorship—call it what you will, but let’s not mince words. Platforms eagerly delete or throttle content that violates no law, simply to dodge DSA investigations and hefty fines.
The Commission pats itself on the back for this overzealous moderation, celebrating platforms’ “compliance” while ignoring the chilling effect on legitimate speech.
Brussels does nothing to curb this private overreach. The Digital Services Act (DSA) targets illegal content but explicitly permits platforms to suppress lawful expression under their terms of service. As former German MEP Patrick Breyer, a vocal advocate for free speech and privacy, has pointed out: the DSA fails to address the real challenges of digital communication regulation and may worsen them by incentivizing error-prone filters and privatized surveillance tools run by platforms.
L'ÉCLAIREUR is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
What, then, is the DSA’s true value—beyond the transparency fig leaf that secured its broad 2022 passage, even from critics like Breyer? It supplanted even more draconian national laws, such as Germany’s NetzDG. But that’s a low bar.
The DSA is now entrenched. European regulations, once adopted, resist amendment. Revamping it outside the scheduled 2027 review? Practically impossible, given the narrow legislative leeway for MEPs and the dominance of centrist political forces across EU institutions.
Those institutions—the Commission, Parliament, Council—are no check and balance but interlocking organisation staffed by the same establishment figures from Renew, Socialists, and EPP, who have rotated power for decades in perfect consensus.
The DSA will likely endure, but don’t expect it to effectively combat truly illegal content or “disinformation”—a term with no legal definition. It’s one piece of a rickety, expansive architecture of control: from DSA’s content policing to Chat Control’s child-protection pretext for mass encrypted communciations scanning, the Data Act, and the looming European digital identity wallet. These tools pave the way for mandatory user authentication, turning free speech into a licensed privilege and eroding privacy.
Brussels today resembles a besieged fortress, barricading itself behind endless regulations—the only tool bureaucrats truly master. On February 24, 2026, the Commission unveiled yet another layer on this unsavory cake: the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, flagship of the nebulous European Democracy Shield.
This voluntary outfit aims to “monitor and detect information manipulation and disinformation,” per Ursula von der Leyen. Where law ends (since disinformation isn’t inherently legal), bureaucracy steps in.
The concept echoes NATO recommendations, amplified under the Biden administration. With high-stakes elections looming—Hungary, Germany, France—Brussels claims urgency. The Centre’s top priority? “Resilient” elections based on pre-existing frameworks that states should dutifully share to preserve the status quo.
Czech authorities once praised Romania’s “electoral integrity” model. Recall Romania’s 2024 presidential farce: under DSA pressure, TikTok was compelled to affirm a massive “Russian disinformation” campaign on its platform. This led to the annulment of the first round, won by the insufficiently EU-aligned Calin Georgescu, who was barred from rerunning.
The pro-Brussels candidate ultimately prevailed in the rescheduled vote. Yet a U.S. Congressional report, citing official documents, found TikTok itself uncovered no evidence of the alleged coordinated Russian campaign.
This raises troubling questions about European interference—French and German mainly—in electoral processes.
L'Eclaireur In English | ||||||
Romania's Presidential Election: A Carnival of Meddling | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
The question of whether Romania’s presidential elections will be rerun has resurfaced with force. | ||||||
|
Tensions with Washington are escalating. The Trump administration has directed American platforms to ignore Brussels’ regulation and announced plans for freedom.gov, a portal enabling access to EU-censored content, potentially with VPN-like features to bypass restrictions.
In France, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated on Franceinfo his will to “bring social networks to heel” before the 2027 presidential election. Good luck with that petty authoritarian fantasy—it’s already doomed.
European leaders refuse to learn from history. By treating social media like the Catholic Church treated the printing press—resorting to four centuries of inquisition-level repression—they ignore the obvious: no amount of coercion halted the Enlightenment. The same will hold for today’s digital age.
Vous êtes abonné gratuit à L'Eclaireur. Pour accéder à l’ensemble de nos contenus, merci de souscrire à la formule d’abonnement payant de votre choix.
| ||||||||||
© 2026 L'Eclaireur - Alpes
Directrice de la publication : Patricia Cerinsek
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire