Much of the social media infrastructure that shapes political discourse today is privately controlled, American-based, and built on an absolutist interpretation of free speech that the rest of the world – including the European Union – neither shares nor benefits from.
As revealed in reports like Semafor’s coverage of group chats that changed American politics, the consolidation of power in opaque, privately owned digital spaces has profound consequences not only within the U.S., but globally.
This problem is not new. But it has become more urgent, particularly for the European Union, which prides itself on democratic governance, social protections, and human rights standards that increasingly diverge from U.S. practices in digital spaces. If the EU wants to maintain sovereignty over its information ecosystem – and protect its citizens from the fallout of America’s libertarian internet policies – it must invest heavily in local tech, social media, and communications infrastructure.
At the same time, it must force Big Tech to submit to algorithmic governance and transparency as a precondition for access to the European market.
The stakes are clear. Platforms like Substack have openly chosen to monetize Nazi content under the guise of “free speech,” a reality confirmed by multiple investigations. When confronted, Substack’s leadership did not deny the issue; instead, they defended it, arguing that even white supremacist propaganda deserves commercial viability under their interpretation of free expression. This is the end result of America’s uniquely absolutist First Amendment culture – where even genocidal ideologies are seen as legitimate “opinions” in the marketplace of ideas.
The First Amendment is an American framework, not a universal one. In the EU, freedom of expression is a fundamental right – but it is not unlimited. The European Convention on Human Rights allows restrictions on speech that incites hatred, violence, or discrimination. EU law explicitly prohibits Holocaust denial, hate speech, and the glorification of Nazism. Yet because the digital architecture remains dominated by American companies with little incentive to comply with European standards, citizens across the continent are forced to endure streams of hateful, dangerous content that would be illegal if published in traditional media.
This is just one of many examples. Russian propaganda influencing elections all over Europe using US or even Chinese-based social platforms, far-right content and hate speech spreading unchecked on social media… The EU has little to no control over what its citizens consume online and with Trump as American president, U.S. Big Tech have even more room to do as they please without suffering any consequences.
The issue is not merely theoretical. It is about sovereignty. It is about safety. It is about the ability of democratic societies to set the rules under which public discourse happens – rather than being passive subjects to foreign corporate policies designed primarily to maximize profit.
The solution is twofold.
First, the EU must significantly invest in homegrown, locally accountable technology. It is unacceptable that Europe, with its 450 million people and substantial economic weight, remains dependent on American platforms for everything from social networking to payment processing. We need European alternatives that are subject to European laws, built by European companies, and accountable to European publics. The same ambition that powered the GDPR, the Green Deal, and the single market must now be directed toward the digital sphere.
Second, the EU must impose strict conditions on foreign tech companies operating within its borders. At minimum, companies like Meta, Google, X, and Substack (just to name a few) should be required to:
- Open their algorithms to independent auditing.
- Submit to EU-based governance bodies capable of enforcing moderation standards aligned with European law.
- Accept liability for hosting hate speech, incitement, and other prohibited content.
This is not unprecedented. The EU has already led the way globally with the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), establishing strong regulatory frameworks. But enforcement must be more aggressive, and compliance must not be voluntary. Companies that refuse to meet transparency and moderation requirements should be fined heavily — or even banned from operating within the EU.
Critics will call this “censorship.” They will decry the loss of “free speech.” But whose speech are we defending when we allow unregulated Nazi propaganda to proliferate? Whose freedom matters when disinformation, radicalization, and hatred are algorithmically boosted for profit?
As Semafor’s reporting showed, even relatively “small” private spaces – such as niche group chats – can radically reshape political outcomes. Imagine, then, the impact of unregulated, transnational platforms influencing elections, public health responses, and democratic stability. Without clear, enforceable rules, the EU becomes an open target for malign actors who exploit American free speech absolutism to undermine European democratic norms.
But it’s important to make one thing clear, initiatives such as weakening end-to-end encryption, creating backdoors and making it easier for citizens to be spied on by governments are not solutions, but rather authoritarian nightmares that some governments are trying to impose by hitching a ride on the necessary debate about regulating social networks and EU’s digital sovereignty.
The time for polite requests and hopeful negotiations has passed. The European Union must act decisively to reclaim its digital sovereignty. Investment in local technology and enforcement of algorithmic governance are not optional luxuries; they are existential necessities for protecting the future of European democracy.
Otherwise, we remain trapped in a digital empire where American tech oligarchs set the rules – and the rest of us live with the consequences.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
