A government official who created and implemented government censorship regulation is a little bit more than "just engaging in speech". That's like saying Deng Xiaoping was "just directing traffic" when the tanks rolled in to Tiananmen.
They weren't implementing "government censorship regulation". They were trying to ensure the different views on speech in their own countries are respected and conformed to.
This is a clear example of global operators running up against the natural friction of conflicting national customs and laws.
It's a particularly knotty issue in the intuitively borderless and passionate medium of internet speech and won't be helped by regulators or commenters here ignoring that.
Apparently the U.S. has reached a point where it will punish foreign officials for policy decisions in their own countries simply because those decisions clash with Silicon Valley’s preferences.
Really sad to see the US sinking deeper and deeper every day.
As a person living in an EU country I feel the urge to say: the legislation which made them a target is definitely problematic and should never have been passed. If you consider Trumps an extremist wrt censorship, you should be aware that the linked legislation in the article opens up significant more headway for legal censorship then whatever Trump did to date. And the reason why they've most likely gotten targeted is because they tried to deplatdorm him back in 2024 by quoting how he's "amplifying hate" (under this legislation).
Frankly, legislation like this makes me dream about a reality in which there is a real independent federal court going through all passed legislation to verify wherever it's in line with the fundamental rights of the country - and if a legislation fails the check, all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
If Turmp was that much of a planner, he could have easily had a second term in 2020 by simply acknowledging Covid as a problem and actually leading the country. I don't think he himself has any real plan. He's just fucking aggro-demented [0] lashing out at his lifetime of grievances and trauma. Some trafficked Venezuelan girl probably didn't smile enough as he was about to use her or something. I'm sure the people around him all have their larger plans though.
[0] anyone that's cared for old people sees the two very different archetypes in "sleepy joe" vs "destructive don"
As an aside I think if you were to make a proper world police it would support democracy against autocrats who won't leave and and that kind of situation seems to be the case in Venezuala - https://lagranaldea.com/2025/11/28/most-venezuelans-consider...
If you recall how it played out, he seemed pretty confident that pressing certain people to find votes and storming the capital would … well he was right wasn’t he? I mean, behaved like it would be and it was. Here we are.
That's just immediate reaction though, not planning. You don't even really have to pin the blame fully on him, if the people around him were whispering in his ear that the election was really stolen, etc. In fact such true belief would make him a better salesman. (Although in the mind of that type of con artist I doubt there is much of a distinction between reality and what they want to be true)
Europeans spend all their time complaining rather than building the next Google. That's why they have no Googles and we aren't going to let them in anymore. Regulation is also bad. /s
The way I see it, if they don't want to be called fascists then they need to find a new label that accurately describes their desired goals. As long as they keep hiding behind this preposterous cloak of "conservative" to cover for an extremely radical agenda, I will use the label "fascist" as it seems to be the most-fitting existing term.
Alternatively they can explain how their agenda differs from fascism, rather than most arguments being of the form that <fascist dynamic> is required due to <some perceived emergency>.
There is, I just believe that generally people on the left have different viewpoint on this article than people on the right, and that's the main deciding factor.
And whenever that's true, the comments get politically heated without any substantive debate between the sides.
I love to debate with friends on the opposite side than me, but strictly offline where I can learn much more from them.
Looking for an explanation about how these people weren’t just engaging in freedom of speech?
A government official who created and implemented government censorship regulation is a little bit more than "just engaging in speech". That's like saying Deng Xiaoping was "just directing traffic" when the tanks rolled in to Tiananmen.
They weren't implementing "government censorship regulation". They were trying to ensure the different views on speech in their own countries are respected and conformed to.
This is a clear example of global operators running up against the natural friction of conflicting national customs and laws.
It's a particularly knotty issue in the intuitively borderless and passionate medium of internet speech and won't be helped by regulators or commenters here ignoring that.
I presume you’re referring to something specific there. What is it?
Apparently the U.S. has reached a point where it will punish foreign officials for policy decisions in their own countries simply because those decisions clash with Silicon Valley’s preferences. Really sad to see the US sinking deeper and deeper every day.
Not just random Europeans, but activists and nothing less than a former EU officer
As a person living in an EU country I feel the urge to say: the legislation which made them a target is definitely problematic and should never have been passed. If you consider Trumps an extremist wrt censorship, you should be aware that the linked legislation in the article opens up significant more headway for legal censorship then whatever Trump did to date. And the reason why they've most likely gotten targeted is because they tried to deplatdorm him back in 2024 by quoting how he's "amplifying hate" (under this legislation).
Frankly, legislation like this makes me dream about a reality in which there is a real independent federal court going through all passed legislation to verify wherever it's in line with the fundamental rights of the country - and if a legislation fails the check, all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
Anti-anti-disinformation measures are very important for this US administration for some reason.
They cancelled the US Department of Defense's anti-foreign-adversary-disinformation efforts for a specific, not suspicious at all, example.
Is this the Epstein smokescreen?
Nah, that'll be the upcoming ground war in Venezuela. Which will conveniently also enable a third term for TFG, see, cos at war, and therefor, etc.
If Turmp was that much of a planner, he could have easily had a second term in 2020 by simply acknowledging Covid as a problem and actually leading the country. I don't think he himself has any real plan. He's just fucking aggro-demented [0] lashing out at his lifetime of grievances and trauma. Some trafficked Venezuelan girl probably didn't smile enough as he was about to use her or something. I'm sure the people around him all have their larger plans though.
[0] anyone that's cared for old people sees the two very different archetypes in "sleepy joe" vs "destructive don"
He's a random walk. When he gets feedback - good or even negative if it's from people he doesn't care for - he'll move more in that direction.
He has people to do the planning - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
I think Venezuela is mostly a Rubio project eg. https://prospect.org/2025/12/01/marco-rubios-sales-pitch-war...
As an aside I think if you were to make a proper world police it would support democracy against autocrats who won't leave and and that kind of situation seems to be the case in Venezuala - https://lagranaldea.com/2025/11/28/most-venezuelans-consider...
If you recall how it played out, he seemed pretty confident that pressing certain people to find votes and storming the capital would … well he was right wasn’t he? I mean, behaved like it would be and it was. Here we are.
That's just immediate reaction though, not planning. You don't even really have to pin the blame fully on him, if the people around him were whispering in his ear that the election was really stolen, etc. In fact such true belief would make him a better salesman. (Although in the mind of that type of con artist I doubt there is much of a distinction between reality and what they want to be true)
Europeans spend all their time complaining rather than building the next Google. That's why they have no Googles and we aren't going to let them in anymore. Regulation is also bad. /s
"american" viewpoints aka fascism and naziism and the promotion of white supremacist views. it will take so much time to undo this mess.
Obligatory: "Are we the baddies?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Looking forward to the commenters arguing that this regime aren't the baddies...
Short answer is yes, we are.
They tell me i’m being hysterical when I call the regime fascist. Ok, buddy.
The way I see it, if they don't want to be called fascists then they need to find a new label that accurately describes their desired goals. As long as they keep hiding behind this preposterous cloak of "conservative" to cover for an extremely radical agenda, I will use the label "fascist" as it seems to be the most-fitting existing term.
Alternatively they can explain how their agenda differs from fascism, rather than most arguments being of the form that <fascist dynamic> is required due to <some perceived emergency>.
Another interesting news item that has nothing to do with hacking and a great target for being flagged for being controversial.
No relevance at all to (say) social media firms, media firms more generally, and AI firms also?
There is, I just believe that generally people on the left have different viewpoint on this article than people on the right, and that's the main deciding factor.
And whenever that's true, the comments get politically heated without any substantive debate between the sides.
I love to debate with friends on the opposite side than me, but strictly offline where I can learn much more from them.
Good! It is wonderful to see American government leaders actually protecting American values like free speech!
Thanks for the attention to this matter!