Erosion Of Freedom In The EU: From Censorship To Centralized Power

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The European Union has increasingly fallen on the defensive in foreign policy. Domestically, the Green Deal has significantly damaged the economic foundation. Together with its main pillars Berlin and Paris, the Brussels-based EU Commission is pushing forward the systematic construction of a censorship apparatus to suppress its own failures from public debate.

The heated discussion in recent days over the censorship of unpopular platforms like Nius is far more than just a warning sign. Schleswig-Holstein’s Minister-President Daniel Günther offered a deep insight into the strategic toolbox of current politics during Markus Lanz’s ZDF show. The politician’s subsequent, at times desperate, attempts—alongside the host and state-affiliated media—to retract his openly stated censorship demands toward critical platforms and media such as Nius illustrate the seriousness of the situation: Germany is slowly but steadily sliding toward a surveillance state.

The Vulgar Side of Censorship

The debate over controlling public opinion, particularly in the digital space, also has a vulgar, unrestrained side—as Apollo News experienced a few months ago. At that time, the local branch of the Left Party openly called for, if necessary, violent action against the newsroom to drive it out of its neighborhood. The statement was phrased as: one should “kick the journalists on their keys.” This is far more than a verbal lapse by radicalized ideologues. It marks a rupture in the political culture of the Federal Republic, in which repressive elements, faced with a simmering economic crisis and growing criticism of the political course, emerge plainly and unapologetically.

We are witnessing an attempt to delegitimize what is visible: the democratic right to freedom of speech and open discourse. The very nature of new digital media—their ability to create fragmented opinion clusters—makes them dangerous for a political system increasingly focused on control. Media like Apollo News contribute to genuine public discourse and thereby evade the interpretive authority of established apparatuses, making them a threat to the censor.

A Pattern at the EU Level

On the EU level, a media-tactical pattern emerges. Representatives in Brussels and their national proponents pursue a clear goal: when externally pressured—such as in the Greenland conflict with the United States—they present themselves in public discourse as victims. Domestically, however, they adopt precisely the position they accuse U.S. President Donald Trump of: acting with elbows, showing no regard for fair negotiation.

The narrative created in this mode is largely carried by a media apparatus closely aligned with Brussels’ political lines. We have seen this in climate policy (Apollo News reported): first, the narrative of existential emergency is established, the story of a burning planet woven into public discourse over years. This is followed by the construction of a centrally planned, strictly regulated transformation economy. Criticism of this strategy has so far been marginalized through a form of soft censorship, placing critics near conspiracy theories in public media. The critic is ridiculed, publicly humiliated.

A similar pattern is evident in the EU’s treatment of countries like Hungary. Because Budapest has resisted open borders and mass migration for years, it is sanctioned in the style of a known bully: sometimes through funding cuts, sometimes via openly threatened penalties. It is always about money. The EU sanctions rather than negotiates. In essence, the EU applies Trump’s “dealmaker” strategy with precision domestically, against its own citizens.

Romania experienced similar treatment last year. During the presidential election, significant pressure was applied to the judicial apparatus to annul the unwanted election of a right-wing conservative president. The aim was not political competition over the country’s future, but institutional and legal intervention to control the outcome.

The explicit goal of EU policy is to centralize power within the Brussels Commission apparatus permanently. This can only succeed if dissenting forces—such as the strengthening right-wing opposition in Eastern Europe—are kept in check and growing criticism of the disastrous economic course of the Green Deal is systematically excluded from public debate.

The Decline of Germany

Since 2018, Germans have witnessed the gradual decline of their industry—and with it the erosion of the foundation of their prosperity. The idea of “Net Zero,” the forced restructuring of the economy toward a fully CO₂-free order, has so far led to a roughly 14% decline in industrial production in Germany, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) reports that over 400,000 industrial jobs were lost in this period.

While industrial value creation and productivity shrink, the state apparatus expands. Bureaucracy and administration boom, creating hundreds of thousands of new positions where no market value is generated. At the same time, a stagnating or shrinking GDP—exacerbated by ongoing mass migration—is spread across a growing population. The result is a large-scale poverty program, which the government prefers not to discuss openly.

The Digital Services Act as a Censorship Tool

The debate over this process increasingly shifts to digital platforms. Leading the way are Elon Musk’s company X, as well as secondary arenas like Telegram or Reddit, offering forums for exchange, research, and counter-speech—places where information circulates that Brussels or Berlin will not accept unchallenged. This is exactly where the problem lies from the policymakers’ perspective: they want to buy time, convinced of the success of their social and economic transformation strategy, while reversal would mean a loss of power.

With the Digital Services Act (DSA), a comprehensive regulatory framework has come into force EU-wide. In simple terms, it obliges large online platforms to remove, restrict, or flag content classified under EU law as illegal, hateful, or socially harmful, including disinformation. Companies must also report on these actions in detail.

In practice, the DSA forces corporations like Meta, X, or TikTok—under threat of heavy fines—to systematically act against content deemed problematic, for example on climate policy, pandemic consequences, migration, or the Ukraine war. Measures include deletions, shadowbanning, warning labels, and deep interventions in recommendation algorithms.

Critics argue that the underlying criteria are often vague, placing political speech under preventive moderation pressure—even before open societal debate can occur.

The Perfidy of the DSA

The DSA’s perfidy lies in creating deliberately vague pseudo-legal grounds under terms like hate, incitement, and disinformation. Platform operators are pushed by economic incentives into preemptive censorship. Legal clarity is not the controlling factor; economic pressure via threat of fines is.

Combined with a growing network of so-called “trusted flaggers”—NGOs and private actors reporting potentially critical content to national authorities—a more constrained public discourse emerges. Brussels’ compliance rules are thus effectively enforced without formally naming a censorship regime.

In this context, it is understandable why a politician like Daniel Günther casually offers a glimpse behind the scenes in the safe space of public broadcasting. Where one believes oneself unobserved, one speaks what elsewhere is carefully concealed: unable or unwilling to make substantive course corrections in economic, climate, or migration policy—or in dealings with Moscow—critics are removed via the censorship stick.

The deliberately provoked dispute with the United States over the future of freedom of speech in Europe, and the threats toward American tech companies, are accepted. Political costs are externalized. Ultimately, the citizen pays the price—both as taxpayer, user, and censored participant in an increasingly narrow public discourse.

* * *

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.