An Essay on EU’s DSA Censorship on Freedom of Speech

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli, professor emeritus

Introduction

Europe’s democracies are unravelling under mounting threats to freedom. Key factors driving this de-democratization include a) the erosion of boundaries between legislative, executive, and judicial powers;[1] b) biased reporting from mainstream and state-owned media; c) lack of accountability in political compromises, exemplified by Ursula von der Leyen’s confidence vote;[2] d) suppression of direct democratic tools like referendums;[3] e) censorship of dissenting voices critical of EU authorities; and f) erasure of dissident content online.

This analysis focuses on the escalating censorship imposed by the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen, a figure elected solely by the European Parliament, not the public—echoing the historical Roman title of “dictator” chosen by a Senate.[4]

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), fully applicable since February 17, 2024, was ostensibly designed to regulate online platforms and combat “disinformation” and “hate speech.”[5] However, in practice, it has become a tool for censorship, wielded by an unelected European Commission to suppress political speech and dissenting voices globally.

This essay argues that the DSA’s mechanisms—shadow banning, content removal, and pressure on tech platforms[6]—mirror the authoritarian tactics of historical regimes like those of Mussolini and Hitler, who censored dissent to consolidate power and prepare for war. I further contend that the EU’s censorship, driven by Russophobic narratives and a war agenda, distorts historical memory and risks escalating global tensions, yet, like past dictators, it will ultimately fail to silence truth.

Drawing on my own experiences as a dissident scholar, censored for critiquing EU policies, and supported by evidence from independent reports, media analyses, and personal documentation, this work exposes the DSA’s threat to free speech under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[7] This censorship, in the case of authors critics to the policies of the EU Commission in matters of suppression of free speech and their propaganda for war, is for the moment carried out principally by Google. Which I will probe in this analysis.

Enforcing Censorship of Freedom of Speech

The EU enforces censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), the EU Disinformation Code of 2025, and other mechanisms. These are mirrored in the UK’s repressive Online Safety Act of July 2025, which follows the EU’s censorship model. The EU laws empower the European Commission and its enforcement teams to suppress free speech of citizens and companies, as outlined in the EU Disinformation Code:

“The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of clearly defined objective criteria to identify “gatekeepers”. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services. Gatekeepers will have to comply with the do’s (i.e. obligations) and don’ts (i.e. prohibitions) listed in the DMA. The DMA is one of the first regulatory tools to comprehensively regulate the gatekeeper power of the largest digital companies.” [8]

Accordingly, “gate keepers connect a vast number of business users with end-users”. [9] For instance, EU’s DMA has designated Alphabet Inc. to exercise control on Google Search.

Consequently, the information displayed or suppressed on platforms like Google Search, including its “News” section, is subject to censorship dictated by the European Commission’s instruments, namely the DSA, DMA, and EU Disinformation Code.

Artificial intelligence analyses report on the issue:

“The DSA aims to combat illegal and harmful content online, including disinformation, and to protect users’ fundamental rights, including freedom of speech. However, concerns exist that the DSA’s emphasis on content moderation could lead to over-removal of lawful and truthful content, potentially impacting freedom of expression”. [10]

In sum, the DSA’s heavy emphasis on content moderation and over-removal of legal and reliable content, threatening the very freedom of speech it claims to safeguard. This civil right, enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European national constitutions, is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. It enables citizens to hold those in power accountable, ensuring they uphold the democratic mandates of their election or face replacement through popular vote.

The erosion of oversight and accountability among EU officials is starkly evident in a secretive DSA workshop held in May 2025. Following a subpoena by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Republicans, confidential documents from this workshop were obtained.[11] These revealed that the European Commission’s interpretation of the DSA mislabels even benign statements, such as “back our country,” as “illegal hate speech,” mandating their censorship. [12]

Similarly, memes and satirical content were arbitrarily deemed harmful and suppressed, actions the Committee Republicans identified as clear violations of free speech. A damning report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, published on July 25, 2025, encapsulates the issue:

“On paper, the DSA is flawed. In practice, it is catastrophic.” [13]

Other authors have also highlighted potential threats to freedom of speech posed by the DSA or similar regulations, particularly when these frameworks commission AI services to detect hate speech, inappropriate content, or disinformation. While AI’s contribution to improving the quality of online discourse is widely welcomed, significant risks remain. As Harrison Stewart notes:

“Algorithmic bias, for example, can lead to the disproportionate censorship of certain viewpoints or communities. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in how these algorithms operate raises concerns about accountability and due process.” [14]

These concerns amplify the DSA’s authoritarian potential, threatening the democratic principles of open dialogue and truth.

Previous censorship of freedom of speech in Europe

Historically, state-enforced censorship in Europe largely ceased in 1945. Germany’s censorship ended with its surrender to Soviet forces in Berlin in May 1945, while France abolished censorship in 1944 following the French Resistance’s victory.

In the United Kingdom, censorship was formally lifted with the Theatres Act of 1968, passed by both Houses of Parliament and ratified by royal assent on July 26, 1968.

Similarly, the United States terminated its wartime censorship, including restrictions on the press, when the Office of Censorship closed on September 28, 1945.

In the current debate over freedom of speech, one fact stands unassailable: not since the era of Mussolini and Hitler has Europe witnessed such pervasive governmental censorship. Fascist and Nazi censorship predated World War II by years.

In Italy, Mussolini’s regime enacted laws restricting freedom of speech and the press as early as 1926, effectively dismantling political opposition and independent media. The Acerbo Law of 1926 granted Mussolini’s Fascist Party an absolute majority in the Italian legislature, consolidating authoritarian control.

In Germany, Hitler exploited the Reichstag Fire of February 27, 1933, to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the following day, suspending freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. The Enabling Act of March 1933 further empowered Hitler’s government to legislate without Reichstag approval, cementing dictatorial rule.

Parallels to these historical precedents are evident in the European Union today. The European Commission increasingly issues “delegated acts”—executive orders enforced across member states without ratification by national legislatures.

Additionally, through “implementing acts,” the Commission mandates uniform procedures for applying EU legislation (“legislative act”), bypassing democratic oversight. These mechanisms, wielded by an unelected body, reflect authoritarian governance reminiscent of the interwar dictatorships, undermining the democratic principles the EU claims to uphold.

Censorship for Pro-War Propaganda

In the cases of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, censorship laws facilitated unchecked rearmament and military planning against European neighbours by silencing public and parliamentary opposition.

The Italian Acerbo Law (1926) and German Enabling Act (1933) rendered legislatures powerless, enabling Mussolini and Hitler to pursue aggressive militarisation without democratic resistance. A striking parallel emerges in the European Union today, where escalating warmongering rhetoric against Russia, voiced by unelected leaders, coincides with intensified censorship. This censorship, disguised as combating “hate speech,” not only shields EU officials from scrutiny of corruption and malfeasance but also serves a broader agenda: conditioning public opinion for potential military confrontation with Russia.

Analogously to the Goebbels era, the European authorities, and governments, constantly demonise, deform or even block the cultural expressions of the “enemy” their propaganda persist to build up in the imagination of the European audiences. Nowadays, the authorities´ proscription of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekov and other classics, the prohibition of let Russian world known artists, music directors or interpreters to perform, is yet another illustration of that similitude.

The EU leadership say to sanction Russia, but instead they sanction the cultural freedom of the Europeans, their right, guaranteed by the UN spirit and legislations of post WWW2, to decide by their own what to read, to listen, to think.

In sum, thinking on these leaders, I could easily paraphrase: If they talk like a fascist, rule like a fascist, and propagandise like a fascist. Then, what are they?

Russophobia

The EU’s censorship under the DSA is underpinned by a pervasive Russophobic narrative, framing Russia as an existential threat to justify both censorship and militarization. This narrative, propagated through EU media and official statements, distorts historical and contemporary realities to vilify Russia and suppress dissenting voices.[^10] My article, “Explaining Russophobia – Anxiety Disorder or Propaganda for War?” (2025), argues that this fearmongering serves geopolitical interests, particularly NATO’s expansionist aims.[^3][^10]

Dissenting analyses, including my own works and interviews with Russian television channels (both state and non-state owned), have been systematically censored on platforms like YouTube and Google Search, likely under DSA pressures.[^2][^3]

The EU’s Russophobia is not merely rhetorical but a strategic tool to silence critics. My book, “Human Rights for All” (2025), critiques the EU’s alignment with NATO’s disinformation campaigns, which label dissent voices as “Russian propaganda.”[^17] Using since long discredited hoaxes such as “connexion with the Kremlin” (never proved either), those in power solely disregard our arguments via ad-hominem fallacies. What they never do, is to meet our arguments, never respond to the content of our criticism.

So, in the absence of the possibility of discussing openly and convince their public, they resort to censorship our opinions via shadow banning – because this censorship is done secretly, without informing those whose voices have been suppressed in the open Internet space.

That is why –as the evidence I provide down below in this text shows [See “The Mechanics of DSA Censorship”]– my exposing of EU media distortions, such as in my analyses in Consortium News or The Indicter concerning NATO’s role in shaping anti-Russian narratives, have been removed from Google.[^1][^10]

This censorship echoes the tactics of Mussolini and Hitler, who suppressed anti-war voices to rally public support for militarization, a parallel evident in the EU’s current push for NATO-aligned policies under the guise of combating disinformation

At this stage of the process, there no more space for “interpretations”, for “what do they think, really”, etc. The belligerent intentions of the European leaders are now belligerent actions. And, any of these days, such behaviour will constitute casus belli.

Here some examples of such dangerous warmonger rhetoric; of how EU leaders have repeatedly articulated confrontational stances toward Russia. Do examine the following statements:

• Kaja Kallas, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs:
  • “Those who enable the [Ukraine] war to continue must pay a price.” [15]
  • “If we don’t get Russia right, we cannot get China either.” [16]
  • “For Ukraine to win and for goodness to triumph over evil, we must bear costs and take risks. Defeating evil requires sustained effort from all of us.” [17]
  • “Russia’s defeat is not a bad thing, as it could drive societal change.” [18]
• Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission:
  • “We will intensify punitive sanctions against Russia.” [19]
  • “On the military front, Russia poses a permanent threat to all of Europe.” [20]
  • “Russia has vastly expanded its military-industrial capacity, fuelling its war of aggression in Ukraine while preparing for future conflicts with European democracies.” [21]

This Russophobic rhetoric, pervasive among EU leaders and member state governments, suggests that censorship—enforced through the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), and EU Disinformation Code—serves not only to suppress criticism of unelected EU leadership but also to propagandise the public for unilateral military campaigns against Russia.

This agenda is already manifest in the EU’s active instigation and support of the proxy war in Ukraine. Notably, many individuals now labelled as “dissidents” are those who criticise the EU’s rearmament and advocate for diplomatic resolutions to the Ukraine conflict [see “The Dissidents” section below]. Their suppression under the guise of “fighting disinformation” underscores the EU’s intent to eliminate voices opposing its militaristic trajectory, echoing the authoritarian tactics of the interwar period. [^1]

DSA Censorship: A Pillar of the EU’s War Strategy

The EU Commission’s systematic propaganda, enforced through the Digital Services Act (DSA), serves a clear militaristic purpose: to advance a “European rearmament” agenda.

According to a report from Ukraine, Von der Leyen stated that clearly:

“The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, called on the EU to prepare for a possible war with Russia and to invest in the production of weapons.” [22]

This push for rearmament, coupled with the procurement of U.S.-manufactured weapons, primarily enriches the NATO military-industrial complex, benefiting U.S. and Israeli arms industries, as well as European manufacturers like Germany’s Rheinmetall, France’s Safran, Italy’s Leonardo S.p.A. and Fincantieri, and Sweden’s Saab.

Claims of Russia planning an “invasion of Europe” lack logical grounding or evidence. Russian leadership has consistently dismissed such accusations as absurd, noting the economic fragility of many European nations and their lack of strategic resources that would justify conquest.

Moreover, Russia’s historical victories over European powers undermine any notion of a “revenge” motive driving its actions. Consider the following defeats inflicted by Russia, as documented in historical records: [23]

• Napoleon’s Coalition (1812): France, joined by Italy, Poland, and Austria in the “Coalition of the Willing,” suffered catastrophic losses of 520,000 troops (76% of 685,000) during Napoleon’s failed invasion of Russia.
• Operation Barbarossa (1941–1945): Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union culminated in the Red Army’s capture of Berlin on May 2, 1945, with Germany losing approximately four million soldiers (76% of its WWII forces).
• British Intervention (1919): During the Russian Civil War, British troops, alongside Italian contingents, were defeated in Northern Russia, with 1,000 British casualties.
• Battle of Poltava (1709): Sweden’s defeat by Russia, with 35% of its troops lost, marked the collapse of the Swedish Empire.

These historical precedents refute the EU’s narrative of a Russian threat, suggesting instead that European leaders—particularly in Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden—may be driven by a desire to restore “national pride” through rearmament. The DSA’s censorship, by silencing dissenting voices that challenge this baseless fearmongering, serves as a critical pillar of the EU’s war strategy, echoing the authoritarian propaganda tactics of the interwar period.

EU Sanctions on Russian Media: Violating European Free Speech Rights

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by all current EU member states, enshrines the right to freedom of expression:

The clause “regardless of frontiers” explicitly guarantees two fundamental rights:

(1) access to information from sources beyond national borders, and

(2) the ability to express opinions through any outlet, regardless of its country of origin.

Consequently, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), by prohibiting European citizens from accessing Russian media outlets—including privately owned ones—violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This restriction denies Europeans the right to seek and receive diverse information, a cornerstone of democratic discourse.

This censorship has personally affected me. Interviews –and informations about the interviews– I gave to several Russian television channels, including non-state-owned outlets, were suppressed on platforms like YouTube and Google (Google Search and News) at the behest of the DSA.

While some interviews touched on geopolitical views, most focused on public health and epidemiology—topics unrelated to the EU’s stated concerns about disinformation. Such actions constitute an illegal infringement of my freedom of expression under Article 19, undermining my right to share expertise through media of my choice.

The EU justifies these sanctions as measures to weaken Russia’s economy. However, since Russian media outlets broadcast without charge, their censorship yields no economic impact on Russia. Instead, these restrictions reveal a clear agenda of ideological and cultural censorship, targeting Russian perspectives to suppress alternative narratives.

This mirrors the tactics of Mussolini’s regime, which silenced dissent to consolidate control, even absent a formal state of war. The EU, while claiming not to be at war with Russia, employs similar censorship under the guise of “fighting disinformation,” raising the question: is the EU waging only an ideological conflict, or is its leadership effectively waging something else?

EU leaders’ belligerent rhetoric—such as Kaja Kallas’s call for Russia to ‘pay a price’ and Ursula von der Leyen’s assertion that Russia is a ‘permanent threat’—coupled with the EU’s role as Ukraine’s primary weapons supplier and threats from figures like Germany’s Friedrich Merz to provide missiles for deep strikes into Russia, [25] confirm an openly declared conflict, belying any claim that the EU is not at war.

EU Sanctions on Russian Culture and Media: Russophobic Propaganda and Historical Disinformation Against European Citizens

The EU’s prohibition on accessing foreign broadcasts, enforced through the Digital Services Act (DSA), constitutes censorship against European citizens, denying them the right to diverse information as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Similarly, restrictions on the distribution of foreign media content via the internet, imposed by the same unelected EU leadership and their bureaucratic apparatus, censor the rights of European readers. This censorship, orchestrated by an unaccountable body with ideological agendas and no direct democratic mandate, aligns with the EU’s broader economic, diplomatic, and political sanctions against Russia.

The result is a grotesque spectacle of Russophobic propaganda and systematic disinformation, exemplified by the following cases.

Auschwitz-Birkenau

Above: Video posted in @professorsblogg / The Indicter Channel

The EU’s Russophobic censorship extends to historical revisionism, notably the exclusion of Russia from Holocaust commemorations at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

On January 27, 1945, the 322nd Rifle Division of the Soviet Red Army liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, a pivotal act in ending Nazi atrocities. Yet, during the 80th anniversary commemoration of this liberation in 2025, Russia was excluded from ceremonies honouring this heroic deed.

In contrast, the United States, whose forces were far from the Eastern Front and played no role in the liberation, was invited, as was Sweden, despite its wartime complicity in supplying raw materials to Nazi Germany’s weapons industry and permitting German troop movements through its territory.

This exclusion of Russia represents a deliberate policy of historical disinformation, erasing the Soviet Union’s critical role in liberating Auschwitz-Birkenau, a site designated by UNESCO in 1979 as a World Heritage Site. Such actions by Germany, other European nations, and Israel, in collaboration with the EU, distort historical truth on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

They mislead European citizens about fundamental events in their history, perpetuating a Russophobic narrative that aligns with the EU’s broader censorship agenda. Scholars and commentators, including myself, who seek to correct these distortions are labelled “dissidents”—a designation I bear with pride.

My efforts to share these facts, including a video posted on X, have been censored under the DSA, stifling free speech and historical accuracy. As someone born during World War II, raised in an era that valued decency, respect, and historical truth, I view xenophobia as a repugnant force. The EU’s Russophobic censorship undermines the universal human rights and freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19. We must resist this erosion of human values to ensure that truth and liberty prevail for all.

The 80th Anniversary of the Fall of Nazi Germany and the End of World War II in Europe

On May 2, 2025, Berlin authorities organised a multi-day commemoration to mark the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s capitulation, a pivotal moment in ending World War II in Europe. The formal surrender of all German armed forces was signed on May 8, 1945, at the Soviet Military Administration headquarters in Karlshorst, Berlin.

However, the decisive victory occurred on May 2, 1945, when Soviet forces completed their conquest of the Reichstag. That morning, General Helmuth Weidling, the final commander of the Berlin Defence Area and former head of the XLI Panzer Corps, surrendered the city to Soviet General Vasily Chuikov, marking the fall of the Third Reich’s capital.

This historic milestone prompted an extensive celebration in Berlin, attended by EU dignitaries, member state governments, and representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and other nations.

Strikingly, Russia—whose Soviet predecessors sacrificed 361,367 casualties, including over 80,000 deaths, in the ferocious Battle of Berlin from April 16 to May 2, 1945—was excluded from the ceremonies. This omission deliberately obscures the Soviet Union’s critical role in defeating Nazi Germany, perpetuating a Russophobic narrative that distorts historical truth and aligns with the EU’s broader censorship agenda under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

By erasing Russia’s contribution to this defining victory, the EU and its allies mislead European citizens about their shared history, undermining the principles of truth and reconciliation.

EU Media Disinformation: The Donetsk Missile Attack and the broadcast of Russophobic Propaganda

Yet, there is another copycat behaviour inspired in the fascist propaganda of the 30´s – 40’s European dictators: to deform the presentation of facts to the point to twist them in 180 degrees. This has such a surrealistic effect, that the public, taken by surprise, cannot possibly think that it could be in reality exactly the contrary.

Examples of this are numerous. I will here develop on two kind of propaganda episodes that illustrate this deceiving behaviour.

a) the “presentation of news”, via European broadcasts and TV channels in which, referring to what has happening “this day” in the Ukrainian front, only the Ukrainian victims of collateral damage are shown, but as a rule, never (or almost never) showing the Russian civil victims occasioned by the missile and drone bombardment conducted that same day by the Ukrainians forces.

b) the perpetration of a war crime that thereafter is imputed to the enemy (the Donetsk Tochka missile case);

Both sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have caused civilian casualties, often unintentionally as collateral damage, with attacks frequently occurring simultaneously. However, my analysis of Italian RAI news programs and German DW’s English edition on YouTube, cross-referenced with Telegram reports of concurrent attacks, reveals a stark bias.

These EU media outlets consistently highlight Ukrainian civilian victims of Russian attacks, often omitting details about whether casualties resulted from anti-aircraft debris or other causes.

Meanwhile, Russian civilian casualties from Ukrainian missile or drone strikes, even when occurring on the same day, are systematically ignored.

This selective reporting is exemplified by the March 14, 2022, Tochka-U missile attack on Universytetska Avenue in central Donetsk, then under the administration of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).

Le Figaro reported that the attack killed 23 civilians, [26] which included pensioners queuing at a bank ATM, as documented by Italian journalist Vittorio Nicola Rangeloni’s video footage. [27]

 

Yet, on the same day, the Italian newspaper La Stampa published a front-page image from Rangeloni’s Donetsk footage, falsely labeling it as a “carnage” (la carneficina) perpetrated by Russian forces in Kyiv, Ukraine.

This egregious misrepresentation, juxtaposing a Donetsk tragedy with a fabricated Kyiv narrative, constitutes deliberate disinformation.I documented this shocking case in a video posted on X, highlighting how EU media, compliant with the European Commission’s agenda, distort reality to amplify Russophobic propaganda.

Notably, such flagrant disinformation by NATO and EU-aligned media has escaped scrutiny or censorship under the Digital Services Act (DSA), revealing the EU’s selective enforcement against dissenting voices while shielding its own propagandistic outlets. Again, this double standard undermines the principles of free speech and historical truth enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Above, my video “Team ultimately responsible of Ukraine missile-attacks on Donetsk & Lugansk?”

The DSA’s Global Censorship Mechanisms: Suppressing Political Speech Worldwide

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), enforced by an unelected European Commission, suppresses dissident voices through two primary mechanisms:

(1) erasing their content from internet search engines, and

(2) coercing European and American tech companies to comply with EU regulations, such as the DSA and Digital Markets Act (DMA), regarding permissible content in posts and comments.

A prominent example is the EU’s legal pressures against X, formerly Twitter. In August 2024, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton publicly warned X’s owner, Elon Musk, of potential sanctions for platforming “harmful content,” prompting global concerns about free speech.[28]

The DSA claims to regulate online platforms by addressing “illegal content and disinformation,” with “disinformation” and “hate speech” as primary targets. [29] In my book, Human Rights for All (2025), I critique the nebulous concept of “disinformation” as defined by NATO and EU-aligned scholars, arguing it serves as a pretext for censoring dissenting narratives.[30]

The DSA’s vague criteria allow the EU Commission to target global tech platforms, which, lacking geographically tailored editions, apply EU-mandated censorship worldwide. Consequently, content suppressed in Europe—such as dissident articles or books—disappears from search results in the U.S. and beyond, undermining global access to information.

Hate Speech Pretext

The DSA’s justification for censoring “hate speech”—encompassing defamation, libel, racist attacks, and threats—is both redundant and unjustified.

European nations have long-established laws protecting individual dignity, with robust judicial systems to address complaints and impose penalties for offenses like defamation or incitement. These national legal frameworks, predating the DSA, effectively regulate harmful speech, rendering the EU’s supranational intervention unnecessary.

Yet, the DSA empowers unelected bureaucrats to secretly evaluate and label political content as “hate speech” or “disinformation,” usurping the authority of national courts.This opaque process lacks transparency and accountability.

Unlike judicial proceedings, DSA “investigations” are conducted without notifying the targeted individuals—often activists, dissidents, or scholars critical of those in power.

In most cases, the DSA orders the removal of their articles or books from internet search engines, effectively erasing their voices. In extreme instances, it demands the partial or total deletion of information about specific authors.

I, along with other dissidents, have experienced this censorship firsthand, as my work has been suppressed under the DSA’s vague and arbitrary criteria. By overriding national judiciaries and silencing dissent, I repeat, the DSA undermines the principles of free speech enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The EU’s DSA use of shadow banning as censorship tool

A. What is Shadow banning?

“To shadowban is to cause (a user or their content) to be hidden from some or all other users usually without the user’s knowledge” / Merriam-Webster.

“Shadow banning…is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm” [Wikipedia]

B. So, what is the second ugly thing with shadow banning?

Shadow-banning is done secretly by the perpetrator by means of an algorithm or direct manipulation to block information about an individual, his opinions and publications. But this not informed to the person-target of the censorship, neither it is announced publicly.

C. And its purpose?

As explained by the New York Times, the purpose of shadowbanning is that your posts (or articles or books) –in other words, your critical opinions– “do not get any engagement”.

In sum, the EU’s censorship, enforced through shadowbanning of political content, suppresses the impact of dissenting voices by covertly hiding them from public view. This violates the public’s right to access all opinions through any media, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in the constitutions of American, European, and other nations. Shadowbanning, driven by the EU’s DSA and unelected gatekeepers, is not only a moral affront to free expression but also potentially illegal under international human rights law, as it undermines the fundamental principles of open discourse and universal access to ideas.

The DSA’s censorship extends beyond suppressing opinions, books, and articles critical of EU geopolitical policies. It also pressures internet search services, such as Google, to shadow-ban dissident authors or entirely remove news references to their work, constituting a discriminatory practice and a blatant violation of freedom of speech.

This extraterritorial censorship exposes the absurdity of targeting “hate speech,” a subjective label often misapplied to legitimate political speech. By enforcing such standards through the DSA, the EU Commission, unaccountable to democratic processes, extends its ideological control worldwide, echoing the authoritarian tactics of historical regimes like those of Mussolini and Hitler. [31]

The Mechanics of DSA Censorship

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), enforced by an unelected European Commission, operates as a global censorship tool, suppressing political speech and dissenting voices under the guise of combating “disinformation” and “hate speech.” This section examines the practical mechanisms through which the DSA achieves this authoritarian control, revealing its impact on search engines, tech platforms, and free expression worldwide.

Global Censorship

The DSA’s censorship extends beyond suppressing opinions, books, and articles critical of EU geopolitical policies, such as its Russophobic war propaganda aimed at escalating tensions and risking World War III.

It pressures internet search services, notably Google, to shadow ban dissident authors or entirely remove news references to their work, constituting a discriminatory practice and a blatant violation of freedom of speech. This, while Google is “controlling around 90% of the global search market”.

Prior to the DSA’s full implementation on February 17, 2024, Google Search’s “News” section listed thousands of results referred to either to my work, [32] including about specific articles authored by me, or other works referring to my analyses, including stream media articles. Today, that number is zero, as evidenced by a current Google Search on August 8, 2025, which states, “Your search marcello ferrada de noli did not match any news results”.[33]

The difference “Before the DSA” and “After the DSA” in the above Google search (Section All), but also regarding a number of known DSA critics such as Paul Coleman and Matts Taibbi, is statistically high significant. (See statistical calculations here).

The shift indicated in the comparison between today’s search in Google and searches done prior the EU’s DSA censorship to free speech,[34] clearly indicates Google’s selective compliance with DSA-driven censorship.

Below, screenshot of a search in Google (section All) 27 April 2021, 10.02 PM:

And below, screenshot of a search in Google (section All) 11 August 2025, 12.13 PM.

The screenshot is from page 5, last page showed by the search. Meaning that there were only 40 results (10 results in each of the precedents pages):

The shadow banning exercised by Google at behest of the DSA

To test my hypothesis on shadow banning exercised by Google at behest of the DSA, I asked GROK, anonymously, to run an independent search about Marcello Ferrada de Noli including respective publications (mainly in The Indicter, SWEDHR, Consortium News, The Professors’ Blog,[35] etc., in Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Duckduckgo. My aim was to establish whether a qualitative difference (statistical significance) could be established attending to the number of results in those different search engines.

Results of the GROK investigation (9 August 2025)

Table 2: Results discrepancies in search across engines for marcello ferrada de noli (Search conducted by Grok)

Note: The ‘Grok Investigation’ reflects AI-modeled analysis of search discrepancies, inspired by tools like xAI’s Grok, not a direct output.

Quantitative analysis (by the author)

Final Report (Summary)

• Chi-Square (1 df): χ² = 3,681.93

• p-value: < 0.0001

• Conclusion:

My comparison between Group A (Google) and Group B (average of the other groups in comparison) reveals a highly statistically significant difference (χ² = 3681.93, p < 0.0001). Thus, the observed frequency of Group A falls far below the expected value under a uniform distribution assumption, indicating a significant deviation from expectation.

Analysis by Grok: [36]

• Google: Most likely to engage in censorship for controversial figures like Ferrada de Noli, as evidenced by ~40 results and the absence of a total count. Google’s extensive content moderation policies, targeting misinformation or politically sensitive content, make it a prime candidate for shadow-banning, especially for Ferrada de Noli’s work on EU censorship and geopolitics.

• Bing: Subject to censorship, particularly in regulated regions (e.g., China) and for mainstream narratives, but ~46,800 results suggest it’s not heavily targeting Ferrada de Noli. Its moderation is less aggressive than Google’s for this query.
• Yahoo: As a Bing-powered engine, Yahoo inherits Bing’s moderation but shows even less censorship with ~1,070,000 results. It’s not a significant target of censorship for Ferrada de Noli, likely due to its reliance on Bing’s broader index and less restrictive presentation.

• DuckDuckGo: Engages in some censorship (e.g., 2022 disinformation policy), but its ~400 results indicate minimal suppression for Ferrada de Noli compared to Google. Its privacy focus reduces personalized filtering, though its smaller index limits total results.

According to the GROK investigation, “The stark contrast between Google’s ~40 results and Yahoo’s ~1,070,000, Bing’s ~46,800, and DuckDuckGo’s ~400 likely reflects Google’s stricter content moderation. Ferrada de Noli’s work, including The Indicter’s articles on EU censorship and SWEDHR’s advocacy, may trigger Google’s algorithms for “misinformation” or “controversial content,” leading to shadowbanning or result truncation.”

Grok’s Conclusion:

“Google’s 40 results suggest shadow banning, likely due to Ferrada de Noli’s controversial work, while Bing (46,800), Yahoo (1,070,000), and DuckDuckGo (400) return far higher counts, indicating minimal censorship for this query. Yahoo, powered by Bing, shows the least restriction, followed by Bing, then DuckDuckGo. Google’s strict moderation policies make it the most likely to target sensitive content like Ferrada de Noli’s.”

My comment:

To the best of my knowledge, Yahoo Search is not in the list targeted by DSA. The results of the search in Yahoo, which includes both my archived academic works and dissident publications, in comparison with that of Google, highlights the discrepancy in the results between Search engines indulging in censorship of free speech at the service of the European Union authoritarian rule, and those remaining free and objective.

Content removal request from Belgium (home to the European Commission’s DSA enforcement hub):

Further evidence of this censorship emerged in a Google Search (“All” section, page 6) for “marcello ferrada de noli” on August 8, 2025, where a revealing a notice states: “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”, [37] linked to a Lumen Database entry.[38]

This notice, archived by the U.S.-based Lumen Database, indicates a content removal request from Belgium (home to the European Commission’s DSA enforcement hub), confirming that my work, critical of EU war propaganda and the Russophobic narratives of its leaders, has been targeted for erasure under the DSA’s vague “data protection” pretext, likely to shield NATO-aligned policies.

This mirrors the censorship tactics of historical regimes, where inconvenient truths were silenced to control public discourse.

SWEDHR

Similarly, the NGO I founded, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR),[39] which advocates for peace and human rights, has been shadow banned on Google, evidencing the DSA’s targeting of voices critical of EU’s war agenda.[40]

Following the DSA’s full implementation on February 17, 2024, Google’s censorship extended beyond sanctioned platforms to erase mainstream media mentions about SWEDHR. Those reports include articles in Le Figaro (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet, Expressen (Sweden), Denmark’s state-owned TV, TV24 (France), Corriere della Sera, Il Foglio (Italy), Huffington Post, etc. However, it appears that, according to EU’s DSA, even the mentions by the European stream media contesting to the denouncing endeavour of the NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights must be blocked. This systematic suppression, even if for that purpose must target mainstream journalism, underscores the DSA’s role in silencing dissent and obscuring human rights advocacy at all costs. I call it plain fascist behaviour.

Table 3: Result discrepancies for SWEDHR – Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (Search conducted by Grok)

The Indicter

GROK extended its query to comprise The Indicter, a monthly magazine on geopolitical and human rights issues I founded in 2015.

To test the above in relation to the different search engines, Grok searched in different search engines using the following query: [site:theindicter.com “Marcello Ferrada de Noli”].

The test results yielded the following:

Table 4: Result discrepancies for The Indicter (Ferrada de Noli):

Grok’s comment:

“The site-specific results focus solely on content from The Indicter (theindicter.com), where Ferrada de Noli is the chief editor and a frequent contributor, known for articles on sensitive topics like EU censorship, the Ukraine war, and White Helmets propaganda. These results confirm that Google consistently returns fewer results than DuckDuckGo, Bing, and Yahoo, both for general and site-specific searches, supporting the hypothesis of potential shadowbanning or algorithmic suppression on Google.“

Censorship Profile

“Google’s low result counts (40 for general, ~130 for site:theindicter.com) suggest significant suppression, especially compared to Bing (46,800 general, 366 site-specific) and Yahoo (~1,070,000 general, <560 site-specific). Ferrada de Noli’s work, including The Indicter’s critiques of EU censorship, NATO, and disinformation (e.g., “EU’s censorship on freedom of speech overrides democracy”), likely triggers Google’s strict content moderation policies targeting misinformation or controversial content.”

The punishment

An article series I published in The Indicter on behalf of SWEDHR, exposing the massacres perpetrated in Donbas during Kiev’s Junta first mandate in 2014 and onwards, was referred in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter [41] commenting The Indicter’s labelling of the first Junta in Kiev as “fascist” (the said junta was composed also by members of the Svoboda Party, a former ethnic ultranationalist organisation reported having Neo-Nazi participants during the 90’s [42] [43]).

The above led to my inclusion on the Ukrainian Myrotvorets website, a “hit list” labelling peace advocates and critics of Ukraine’s policies as “enemies”.[44]

My comment on the inclusion of my name in the Ukrainian hit list published in October issue 2022 of The Indicter [45] has also been censored via the DSA mandates. But the Myrovorets list, an outstanding example of “hate speech”, including the post asking for my punishment, remains freely online.

The current blacklisting praxis in Europe, and globally, mirroring DSA’s censorship, seeks to silence those promoting understanding among nations and averting global conflict. And this includes YouTube.[46] [47] [48]

My undertakings for the cause of free speech are not to be silenced by unelected dictator Von der Leyen

My lifelong commitment to free speech, spanning over five decades, underscores the EU’s targeting of dissidents.

In 1965, at age 22, I was a founding member of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) in Chile, a guerrilla force that resisted the Pinochet coup and comprised diverse ideologies, including Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyites, social-anarchists, and libertarian-socialists like myself.[49] [50]

Text in circle above: “August 4 (1969) – Marcello Ferrada Noli, a philosophy professor and member of the Higher Council of the University of Concepción, was arrested near Concepción. He is one of thirteen MIR members fugitives from justice, against whom there is an arrest warrant in the case for subversive activities of the MIR.”

Signalled as one of 13 MIR “fugitives from justice” (See El Mercurio clip, above),[51] I was detained by Carabineers and imprisoned under Chile’s National Security Law for alleged subversive activities. While being transported to their headquarters, I answered to a journalist, “The government persecutes everyone who doesn’t think like it,” a quote published in a Chilean newspaper 3 Aug 1969.[52]

In 1970, I went into exile in London after proscription by the Christian-democratic government of Eduardo Frei. Following the election of socialist President Salvador Allende in 1970, who pardoned MIR cadres, I returned to Chile in early 1971 and began working as a full professor at the University of Concepción.

After participating in Concepción’s sporadic resistance[53] following the Pinochet coup of September 11, 1973, I was imprisoned by the military, first at the football stadium in Concepción and later at the Prisoner Camp of Quiriquina Island under the Navy.[54]

Liberated in 1974, I went into exile again, first to Italy to participate in the Tribunal Russell in Rome,[55] [56]and then to Sweden, where I resumed my academic career, eventually retiring as professor emeritus.

Though I am no longer a member of any political group, my left-libertarian ideology continues to drive my advocacy for human rights and civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression, including through founding SWEDHR and The Indicter to advance global human rights.

Now, approaching my 83rd birthday, I continue to challenge authoritarian censorship.

Recognised among “The World’s Top Dissidents 2025” in a Substack list [57] alongside figures like Julian Assange, Barrett Brown, Roger Waters, Edward Snowden, and Gonzalo Lira—who was killed in Ukrainian custody in January 2024 for his critical reporting on the war, underscoring the lethal risks faced by those opposing militarist narratives.

Credit: Image above from the article by Thorsten J. Pattberg, “The World’s Top Dissidents (In 2025),” Substack, March 25, 2025.

In fact, during my struggle for the liberation of Julian Assange, which lasted over a decade, I authored about 200 publications on his case, including two books. I published many of them via the SWEDHR platform and The Indicter [58], [59] but also on Professorsblogg. Julian was very kind in his gratitude towards SWEDHR:

And about Gaza, well, now, in the second half of 2025, many NGOs have begun to add their names to those demanding end of the Israel occupation in Gaza. And it is a very welcome act of solidarity – long-time expected– with the oppressed, and battered, proud Palestinian people. But on behalf of SWEDHR, already in 2023, I wrote an open letter to Ursula von der Leyen demanding her to denounce the genocide of the Palestinian people.

Exposing the Russophobe warmongers

As I documented recently in my article “La Russofobia dei lidere europei. Disturbo d’ansia o propaganda di guerra?”. (“European Leaders’ Russophobia – Anxiety Disorder or Propaganda for War?”) [60] Russian victories over European powers—such as Napoleon’s Coalition (1812), Operation Barbarossa (1941–1945), the British Intervention (1919), and the Battle of Poltava (1709)—refutes EU narratives of a Russian threat, detailed in a previous article. [61] Of course, neitherlisted by Google various search sections.

My recent works, including the book Human Rights for All (2025), articles exposing EU media disinformation (e.g., Donetsk), and posts on X critiquing NATO’s role in disinformation, have been systematically shadow banned on Google Search, likely due to DSA enforcement.

Likewise, the misreporting of the Donetsk missile attack, with the Italian newspaper La Stampa’s front-page image falsely labelling it instead a Russian “carnage” in Kyiv.

I reviewed my documenting La Stampa’s ominous misreporting in a video I produced for The Indicter Channel, though access to it became constrained. [62] YouTube’s imposed “age restrictions”. But in this case, it was just another form of censorship. For what is bizarre in the video is not the serious report of the mainstream Italian journalist, but the gross supplanting of the scene by La Stampa which I denounced in the video.

Similarly, my interviews with Russian television channels, including a February 4, 2025, RT discussion on cancer vaccines, were removed from YouTube, presumably under DSA pressures, alongside other videos exposing media bias, war crimes, and vaccine misinformation.[^2]

And one of the first documents Google erased from the “All” and “News” sections in its Search was a report I had authored and that it was incorporated as an official document in the UN Security Council (See Security Council, doc. A/72/626 S/2017/848). It is an analysis I had published in The Indicter examining epidemiological and geopolitical issues in the OPCW reports on Syria. Why it was censored by EU / Google? Because my work was introduced at the UN Security Council with a presentation letter by the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasili Neblenska.

Link: UN Security Council doc. A/72/626 S/2017/848

33 of my videos during the period 2022–2025 have been flagged by YouTube “for age restrictions”. They included critiques of war propaganda and human rights abuses. This censorship mirrors the 1969 Chilean regime’s tactics, where dissent was silenced to protect power.

As Voltaire said, “It is dangerous to be right when those in power are mistaken.”

The DSA’s selective suppression of dissidents like myself not only stifles individual voices but also erodes the democratic principles of open discourse and accountability.[63]

Such discrimination, evident in Google’s erasure of my work, SWEDHR’s activities, and my Myrotvorets listing while Yahoo retains them, not only stifles individual voices but also erodes the democratic principles of open discourse and accountability, threatening free expression globally and undermining efforts to foster peace among nations.

Summary & Conclusion:

The EU’s Digital Services Act, wielded by an unelected European Commission, constitutes a modern form of authoritarian censorship, echoing the repressive tactics of Mussolini and Hitler. Through mechanisms like search engine shadow banning, tech platform coercion, and the pretext of combating “hate speech,” the DSA silences dissident voices to enforce a Russophobic propaganda campaign and advance a militaristic agenda that risks World War III.

Historical distortions—such as the exclusion of Russia from Auschwitz-Birkenau and Berlin commemorations, or the misreporting of the Donetsk missile attack—reveal the EU’s deliberate effort to manipulate public perception and erase inconvenient truths.

The reliance on AI for content moderation, as warned by Harrison Stewart, risks amplifying these threats through algorithmic bias and lack of transparency, further undermining democratic discourse. [^30]

Resisting the EU’s Authoritarian Censorship

My own journey, from a 1969 Chilean dissident imprisoned for challenging state repression as a libertarian-socialist to a scholar shadow banned on Google Search in 2025 for exposing EU disinformation, underscores the personal and global stakes of this censorship. [^24][^31]

My founding of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR), which critiques global human rights violations and advocates for peace, has also been targeted, with its online presence shadow banned on Google under DSA pressures.[^36]

My inclusion on the Ukrainian Myrotvorets “hit list” for critiquing biased Swedish media coverage of the Ukraine war, published in The Indicter, exemplifies how advocates for understanding among nations are vilified to suppress dissent.[^32][^36]

My YouTube videos, including an RT interview on cancer vaccines, critiques of Swedish media bias, and exposés of war crimes and vaccine misinformation, were removed under DSA pressures, stifling critical discourse.[^2][^32][^33][^34][^35]

I stand in defiance of the DSA’s assault on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[^20][^21][^37] As Voltaire warned, “It is dangerous to be right when those in power are mistaken.”[^21]

Yet, like the dictators of the past who censored to rearm for war and still lost, the EU’s censorship will fail to silence the truth or extinguish the call for peace.

REFERENCES and NOTES