In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Niklas Eder, co-founder and co-CEO of User Rights, a designated out of court dispute settlement body under the Digital Services Act which reviews complaints from users whose social media posts have been deleted or moderated. Together, Ben and Niklas discuss:
This episode is sponsored by PwC, whose upcoming 2026 Trust and Safety Outlook Report explores the forces reshaping how organizations are approaching online safety and integrity. In our special bonus chat, Ben sits down with Dan Hays, Principal Partner of Strategy& (part of the PwC network), to talk about the future of trust and safety and get a sneak peek at some of the themes in their report before its release next week at TrustCon.
The central theme of Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available) is the growing incompatibility between traditional copyright law and the digital, online world. The culmination of that process was the EU Copyright Directive, passed in 2019. The Directive was supposed to be transposed into local laws by 2021, but a year after that deadline, many EU member states had failed to do so. Nor was that a case of mild slippage; a recent report from Communia provides an update on how the implementations are going. Here’s what it found for one of the most contentious areas of the Directive:
the introduction of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 has not been matched by consistent implementation of the mandatory limits intended to contain its scope. Despite the largely prescriptive nature of the Directive, a significant number of Member States have failed to fully implement these safeguards. In addition, some jurisdictions have chosen not to apply existing copyright exceptions to the new right, resulting in a broader scope of protection for press publishers than for other rightholders and further contributing to fragmentation across the internal market.
That fragmentation is deeply ironic, because one of the main justifications for a new copyright Directive was to bring consistency across the EU. As for the even more controversial upload filters, they have proved so difficult to implement that most governments have not even tried to lay down how they should be used:
Most Member States have limited themselves to restating the Directive’s requirement that lawful uploads must not be blocked, leaving the practical balancing of copyright enforcement and freedom of expression largely to platforms and courts. While a small number of jurisdictions have introduced stronger safeguards – such as ex ante protections against overblocking, transparency obligations, and mechanisms to address abusive claims – these remain the exception. As a result, the level of protection for lawful user expression continues to vary across Member States.
Again the much-vaunted consistency that the Directive would bring to EU copyright law is nowhere to be seen. If those failures underline that, as predicted, the EU Copyright Directive has turned out to be a bad law, badly implemented, arguably the arrival of generative AI has made many of its measures completely moot. As Walled Culture has reported, the idea that copyright is largely irrelevant in a world full of AI-generated material – something first suggested on this blog back in October 2022 – is now increasingly mainstream.
But things are still moving fast in the world of generative AI, with yet more profound implications for copyright. A recent post on the IPKat blog explores one of them: the rise of a powerful new generation of AI models that can be run on a personal computer – or even on a smartphone. Many of the latest models coming out of China are not just open source software, but open weight – that is, the models’ numerical values that get set when a model is trained are released, too, so that anyone can download, run, study, and modify them. As a good introduction to this new wave of Chinese AI innovation in Technology Review explains:
If these open-source AI models keep getting better, they will not just offer the cheapest options for people who want access to frontier AI capabilities; they will change where innovation happens and who sets the standards.
One big impact they are likely to have is on the enforcement of copyright, not least in the EU. The IPKat post notes:
The spectrum of engagement with [open source and open weight] models clearly challenges the copyright system. A system, in this Kat’s view, which, until recently, was oriented around individual acts of copying, with platforms cast as new points of interference to bridge technological enforcement gaps. However, [user-generated content] occurring on AI model marketplaces demands a shift in rhetoric and approach. Their ability to redistribute creative agency and control over the tools of cultural production should prompt us to reflect on how copyright law should respond to creativity that occurs through shared infrastructures.
The EU Copyright Directive’s core assumption that the main forums for sharing material would be a few, easily controllable online giants like Google and Facebook, no longer holds. Instead, people are moving to world where millions of people are using the latest generation of open source AI tools collaboratively to generate creations. Those may or may not be based on existing copyright material, but there is no easy way to police that. As the IPKat post points out:
For users running these [new open source and open weight] models locally, they no longer need to pay per request, nor is their data shared with AI companies, and by extension, rightsholders through Article 53(c) of the AI Act.
The world of generative AI is so complex, and moving so quickly, that it is no wonder that even the relatively recent EU AI Act, which entered into force two years ago, is being left behind by the latest developments. And the EU Copyright Directive, which was drawn up nearly a decade ago, is the digital equivalent of the UK’s 1865 Red Flag Act, which governed “self-propelled vehicles”, and required “a man with a red flag was to walk at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle”.
In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Technology Institute, an independent non-profit focusing on technology that serves the public. She previously co-founded legal non-profit Foxglove and led national security litigation at human rights organisation, Reprieve. Together, Ben and Cori discuss:
Just a couple weeks ago, the European Commission put out its plan for “European tech sovereignty.” It’s not surprising that Europeans are looking at their internet platform options and seeing a choice between US companies and Chinese companies as something that isn’t that appealing. Of course, Europe has mostly itself to blame for this mess. As an Economist piece in April noted, the EU effectively regulated its own internet ambitions to death:
Here is an uncomfortable truth for hand-wringing policymakers in Paris, Berlin and beyond: Europe’s dependency on America Inc is in no small part Europe’s own fault. Decades of over-regulating the old continent’s economy left businesses there unable to compete with American firms, which went on to trounce European ones even in their own backyards. What Europeans could not build quickly for themselves, due to a thicket of regulations, they often imported just as quickly from abroad….
Tech is where the dependency seems most acute. Europe has few firms at the forefront of AI, space or high-end computing (one notable exception is ASML, a Dutch firm globally vital to chipmaking). Even governments often have little choice but to use the likes of Microsoft or Amazon for cloud services, Palantir to sift through data or SpaceX to launch military satellites. Quixotic attempts to shake off big tech abound, for example by having civil servants ditch Windows for some clunky substitute. Too often the European alternatives are lacking anyway. It turns out that boasting about regulating AI before the public had made their first ChatGPT query—as the European Union did in 2021—is not conducive to home-growing AI champions.
Yes, EU rules often applied to American firms, insofar as they wanted to offer their wares in the bloc. But regulation in practice hit European firms harder. The costs of administering complex data-protection rules, say, could easily be absorbed by a Google or OpenAI, with their hordes of compliance staff. Not so their European rivals, which have usually lacked scale (if only because the EU’s fragmented single market made it harder for them to grow beyond their home country). The EU thus generated barriers to entry that often ended up protecting American giants.
And so the EU is going back to the drawing board, once again thinking that it can technocrat its way to technical competence, and that seems unlikely. After all, weren’t the EU’s two biggest pieces of signature tech legislation — the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) — supposed to solve all of this already?
I’ve long been a critic of both laws that were in some ways too vague and in other ways too restrictive all along, but at the very least they were the product of a fairly lengthy process, in which EU regulators were made well aware of the tradeoffs of various approaches. And they chose to land where they landed. This new move by the European Commission isn’t quite an admission of failure, but it sure is a sign that what they insisted would create the right incentives for local competition hasn’t yet worked.
But, of course, none of that may matter if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) — the highest court across the EU — continues to YOLO its way through internet law. Back in December we wrote about its deeply problematic ruling in the Russmedia case, which more or less ignored the fragile balance that the DSA had set forth regarding intermediary liability for third-party speech, by insisting that any platform operator must scan any user generated content for “sensitive personal data” about anyone else and block it. It effectively required full scanning of every piece of uploaded content, a ban on anonymous speech, and a requirement that “bad” posts somehow be blocked from anyone copying them.
And now it’s taken that up a notch in its new WebGroup ruling (full ruling currently only available in French, but Google translate works, at least while Google can still operate in the EU). While the headline regarding the ruling is that the CJEU says that age verification mandates are fine regarding pornographic content (matching the US Supreme Court on that one), the ruling goes even further, and suggests that any website that has algorithmic recommendations for content should take on liability for the content it recommends.
I recognize that some people are cheering this on because they hate “big tech” and think this will somehow damage it. That’s wrong. It will damage smaller tech players (such as the ones the EU is trying to encourage companies to build in the EU) way, way more. I’ve written before, in the US Section 230 context, why it’s a terrible idea to make recommendation algorithms liable for the content they recommend, and that reasoning applies equally in the EU.
Recommendation algorithms actually do, on the whole, make the internet experience much more bearable. I get that more and more internet users grew up in an era dominated by the algorithm, but it was not better before that. The internet was so filled with nonsense and junk that people begged for better algorithms. And in this new era, with the rise of AI slop, it would be even worse.
But, more to the point, a recommendation algorithm is simply stating an opinion of “this is what we think you should look at next.” We can debate the purpose of that opinion, and whether it is solely to extract more attention or money from users, or to actually provide them value. But that doesn’t matter. Nothing in “this is what we think you should look at next” is (by definition) a full-throated endorsement of the content. It’s literally “based on other stuff you’ve looked at, and our own weights and priorities, here’s what you should look at next.” It has no way of reviewing the actual quality of the content, determining if it’s helpful or not, factual or not, or nonsense or not.
That’s just not how any of this works.
But once you put liability just for recommending “this is what the algorithm thinks you should look at next” you make it ridiculously expensive to offer any sort of algorithm — even in situations like Bluesky where anyone can create and share their algorithms for others.
The end result is that the only companies who will be able to recommend content — which, by every possible measure in every possible study, we’ve seen the vast majority of internet users prefer — will be the largest companies in the world: Google, Meta, TikTok. All of the upstart competitors, all of the services the EU now says it wants to grow at home, would find it impossibly difficult to offer such a feature, because the risk of liability would be way too intense.
For all the many problems I had with the DSA, on this it mostly got the equation right, recognizing that pinning liability on platforms in this manner could have really negative effects. And while I still think the DSA should have gone much further in protecting intermediaries, the CJEU interpretation here basically takes a sledgehammer to the attempted balance within the DSA.
The mistake the CJEU is making here, as highlighted by expert Daphne Keller, is that in thinking that this will “make big tech more responsible” it actually empowers them, encourages them to engage in constant monitoring and surveillance, and basically appoints them as the speech police. What could go wrong?
I'm sure the CJEU thinks it is constraining the power of platforms and "making them be responsible" through rulings like this.But it is really just handing control over users' fundamental rights to private corporations, and telling them to be heavy-handed in surveilling and silencing people.
Some of us have been making this point for years. And the results of earlier laws (like the GDPR) showed exactly how this would play out, entrenching the largest companies and leaving the EU once again flailing around demanding new laws to fix the situation their old laws created.
It’s understandable that the EU doesn’t like its tech platform choices. But it’s now in a loop of its own making. Fail to understand the technology, fall prey to a moral panic, over regulate… and then wonder why no one is building and the big American tech companies just get bigger. Rinse and repeat. The CJEU’s latest ruling undermines the attempt at balance laid out by the DSA and completely sabotages the “homegrown” sovereign competitors the Commission so desperately claims it wants to cultivate — while handing the surveillance infrastructure bill to the only players big enough to pay it. The Commission can call it tech sovereignty all it wants. The CJEU just made vassalage structural.
Well, perhaps the demise of the Stop Killing Games movement in the EU was overstated. We were just talking about how the attempt to introduce new legislation to support the goals of the movement were defeated, despite a petition with over a million signatures and a parliamentary hearing that reportedly went very well. Given that all the movement is really after is restoring the copyright bargain in the video game industry such that cultural output in the form of games can’t be disappeared into the ether when a company decides to stop supporting it, the EU’s claim that copyright itself prohibits crafting new legislation was very disappointing.
But the movement is not only not done, but appears to have anticipated the decision. They are now moving onto their secondary plan: amending legislation already in process to achieve the same end.
“This movement is defined by action and we will keep acting, we owe Ross [YouTuber Ross Scott, who launched Stop Killing Games in 2024] and the millions of people that have put their trust in us,” Stop Killing Games organizer Moritz Katzner wrote. “MEPs have recognized that, the California state assembly and even the courts have. Let’s keep winning.”
Katzner also laid out Stop Killing Games’ plans for the next few months, which includes continuing work on the Protect Our Games (POG) Act in the US and adapting it for the EU, pushing efforts based on existing legislation in the EU, and building up its new Stop Killing the Internet team.
The legislation in question is the EU’s Digital Fairness Act. The DFA has some lofty goals with some welcome aims, such as prohibitions on certain UI/UX practices online that are designed to push users to make uninformed decisions they wouldn’t otherwise make, or ending region-based restrictions on the use of technology. But there is plenty of concern about the law as well, with opportunities for it to focus on age-checks, deeper surveillance into the usership, and so on. If this thing is going to become law, it very much needs to focus on both consumer protections through freedom and not requiring corporations to take an even heavier hand in monitoring and restricting who can do what with the technology. And, above all else, it cannot curtail innovation.
Stop Killing Games organizers, including founder Ross Scott, anticipated the Commission’s refusal and are now focusing on amending the Digital Fairness Act. They claim to have majority support in the European Parliament, with over 40 lawmakers backing the petition’s goals. The DFA, still in development, addresses broader digital rights issues, making it a potential vehicle for game preservation measures.
“We have made serious inroads in parliament. Just recently, we’ve even had an inquiry call on legislative action to the Commission signed by 45 members of European Parliament and collectively we have majority support on this issue. This means we’re in a position to pass legislation on this even without the Commission’s blessing.” – Ross Scott
Despite the recent set back, those heading up the movement believe they’re still in a good place to get something done. Alongside the legislation being proposed in California, it would be nice to see them start to stack up wins.
Well, this is very disappointing. Over the first half of this year, we’ve talked about the resurgence of the Stop Killing Games movement, which aims to push various governments to legislate out the practice of video game publishers sunsetting their games and making them unplayable afterwards. The aims of the movement are simple: publishers can certainly sunset their games that require backend servers to work, but they should make them hostable and playable through fan-run servers if they do, should notify customers well in advance of the sunset date, or should make or alter the games so they can be played independent of the company keeping services running.
To that end, the movement managed to get enough signatures in the EU to get a parliamentary hearing, which was reported to have gone quite well. That’s why it’s a surprising to learn that the EU just ruled out issuing that kind of mandate to publishers. Instead, the EU wants this to be a voluntary process, and what it’s citing as the reason it can’t be done by mandate is breaking my brain.
The European Commission said on Tuesday it cannot require video games to remain playable after they are withdrawn from sale, but will work with industry and consumer groups on a voluntary code of conduct for managing games’ “end of life”. The Commission said copyright and other intellectual property rules prevent it from imposing an obligation to keep games playable. It added it would work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness of existing rights.
“Active enforcement of these existing consumer rights can also incentivise the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans and explore solutions for meeting consumer expectations,” the Commission said in a statement.
Copyright law is my reason why mandates like this should exist. Like, American law, EU copyright law offers protection for a work for the author’s life plus 70 years. After that, the work enters the public domain. Unless, that is, we’re talking about video games that require backend support, in which case it never enters the public domain and instead just vanishes into vapor. And that, I have repeatedly argued, breaks the copyright bargain entirely. In fact, it seems to me that it breaks it so completely that works like that shouldn’t even get copyright protections without rules such as exactly what Stop Killing Games is advocating for.
And this plan for publishers to do all of this voluntarily? Don’t make me laugh. The very gaming companies that the EU wants to take this sort of preservation effort on voluntarily lobbied against codifying preservation efforts. Why would they do that if they were willing to do this all voluntarily?
Finally, the point of all of this is not merely to make games playable for longer. It’s to preserve them as close to infinitely as possible. That should be the aim of any cultural output.
Stop Killing Games hasn’t commented publicly on the decision yet. I doubt the movement will take this defeat lying down, however.
The internet is an essential resource for young people and adults to access information, explore community, and find themselves—both inside countries and across continents. Yet governments around the world continue to introduce and implement legislation requiring all online users to verify their ages before accessing the digital space. In some cases, politicians are going further, putting forth proposals to ban social media for younger users.
In late 2025, Australia’s government rolled out the first complete ban on users under 16 from having social media accounts. In this sweeping regime, platforms are required to introduce age assurance tools to block under-16s, demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps” to deactivate accounts used by under-16s, and prevent any new accounts being created, or face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million USD). The 10 banned platforms—Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X—have each said they’ll comply with the legislation, which led to young people losing access to their accounts overnight. Reddit is currently challenging the law in Australian courts on constitutional grounds. Recent research notes how the ban is preventing teenagers from accessing news in the country.
In the United Kingdom, rules took effect in mid-2025 under the Online Safety Act that require all online services available in the country to assess whether they host content considered harmful to children; if so, these services must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing such content. Online services are also required to change their algorithms and moderation systems to ensure that content defined as harmful, like violent imagery, is not shown to young people.
This approach is reckless, short-sighted, and we’ve already seen it introduce more harm to the young people that it is trying to protect. The UK’s scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn’t one, and we’ve spent years urging UK politicians to abandon any measures that require platforms to collect data or remove privacy protections around users’ identities.
Earlier this year, Indonesia’s Communications and Digital Affairs Minister, Meutya Hafid, announced that users under 16 would have their accounts on “high risk” platforms deactivated from 28 March. The platforms subject to this ban are YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bigo Live, and Roblox; with Hafid noting how this policy would make Indonesia “the first non-Western country to delay children’s access to digital spaces according to age.”
Similarly, the Malaysian government has recently pushed forward with plans to ban users under 16 from having accounts on social media platforms with at least 8 million users in Malaysia, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Users under the age of 16 are being told to download or transfer their data from these platforms in one month before the restrictions are applied. Platforms failing to comply with the ban may face penalties of up to $2.5 million USD.
In Latin America, Brazilapproved a new law in 2025 establishing that providers of information technology products and services directed to children and teenagers, or likely to be accessed by them, must conduct age checks when their products and services offer risks to underage users. Regulation requires age assurance for products and services that are not allowed for children and adolescents in accordance with Brazilian legislation. App stores and operating systems are required to provide age signals for other providers.
While the law is already in force, full compliance with its obligations is expected for early 2027, after the approval of further regulations and a transition period, and the authority responsible for enforcing the law is the Brazilian National Data Protection Agency. The list of concerns regarding the implementation of the law include: the wide scope of products and services that may fall within age-check obligations, how these obligations can affect non-proprietary operating systems and free software projects, and how effective the law’s crucial data protection safeguards will be in a context of likely widespread age checks for accessing content online.
Similarly, the European Union has taken large steps towards mandatory age verification that could undermine privacy, expression, and participation rights for everyone. Politicians are promoting an EU-wide approach to age verification through its age verification “app,” which will be fully interoperable with the Digital Identity Wallet. While this mini-app has been announced as technically ready to be rolled out “for citizens to use,” it comes with its own realm of potential privacy and security concerns, such as long-term identifiers (which could result in tracking) and over-exposure of personal information.
The European Commission also supports age verification in various legislative initiatives, from proposals that would allow or mandate companies to scan our communication (“Chat Control”) to non-binding guidelines of existing laws, such as the Digital Services Act. The EU Parliament, too, has proposed an EU digital minimum age of 16 for access to social media, a move that aligns with EU Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen’s recent public support for measures inspired by Australia’s model. To all these initiatives EFF has provided one consistent response: mandatory age verification measures are not the right way to protect young people.
These proposals restrict the fundamental rights of young people to speak to each other and to access information. They also force all internet users, not just those under a certain age, to upload private data—like a face scan or passport—in order to access a website or service. In considering the vast scope of privacy issues pertaining to the collection, storage, and sharing of this personal information, the problems of age verification in restricting free speech are compounded by these reckless and harmful approaches to verification.
The problem of censorship and surveillance goes far beyond the borders of the internet. EFF continues to explore support for legislative and litigation challenges that recognize how these laws harm everyone’s rights to privacy, free expression and due process.
Progress may be slow, but it’s still progress. While I’ve been talking about the importance of video game preservation as a function of our own overall cultural preservation, very few people out there are actually trying to do something about it all. One of those doers has been Ross Scott and others involved in the Stop Killing Games movement. Scott, a YouTuber, started this whole thing in 2024 and really got it rolling on a second attempt in 2025. In that short period of time, the movement managed to secure some allies in the EU and British governments, ran a successful signature campaign to get the EU to open the discussion on legislative and enforcement remedies, and got that hearing on the schedule.
The Stop Killing Games initiative now faces increased legislative examination because of its current status as a proposed law. The Stop Killing Games movement brought its digital obsolescence battle to European Parliament this month because its members succeeded in establishing their first political presence. The hearing organized by Ross Scott and Moritz Katzner aimed to expose the harmful industry custom which enables companies to disable online games completely. The movement believes that publishers who stop supporting products which they sold as retail items engage in false advertising which violates consumer rights.
Advocates for the proposed legislation introduced an organized approach to guide lawmaking bodies during the proceeding. The main requirement of their proposal demands software firms to create offline functionality for their products or make their server code accessible as open source when games reach their end of life stage. Scott and Katzner maintained that these products serve as vital cultural heritage items which consumers own through their property rights. The commission members received evidence which showed that abrupt game terminations take away users’ financial resources and time investments while failing to provide proper solutions.
As a more direct reminder, below are the articulated goals of the movement.
Games sold must be left in a functional state
Games sold must require no further connection to the publisher or affiliated parties to function
The above also applies to games that have sold microtransactions to customers
The above cannot be superseded by end user license agreements
The hearing itself included witness testimony from consumer rights groups in the EU, which is really important. While cultural preservation clearly remains a primary goal of the movement, that goal was cleverly wrapped within claims that there are already laws on the books designed to protect customer rights and property when purchased that many game publishers appear to be pretty clearly violating. Within the hearing itself it was also revealed that the movement has gained even further support from other politicians and advocacy groups within the EU.
It was, by all accounts, a really positive hearing for those of us who care about game preservation. But we do need to temper our expectations as to the timeline for what comes next, because the EU is a big ol’ bureaucracy and this is all going to take a great deal of time.
The gaming community should not expect instant changes to policy according to advocates who received positive feedback from committee leaders. Moritz Katzner explained that the hearing served as an effective platform to present their case yet it stands as the first step in a lengthy administrative procedure. The campaign succeeded in establishing its primary objective by bringing the subject into official political debates but now needs to navigate ledge machinery to convert these consumer rights violations into legal protections which will be enforced across Europe.
And that may, or likely will, take years. But it’s a fight worth sticking out, if you care at all about art preservation and the rights of the public to retain ownership of the things they’ve paid for. And, frankly, if you care about the public domain, which you damned well should.
I’m going to keep coming back to this point, because I think it’s pretty much unassailable. In any copyright system in which the purpose of the limited monopoly granted to a publisher of art is to benefit the public through both the creation of more art as well as those creations ending up in the public domain for everyone’s benefit, then video games being designed such that publishers can disappear them on a whim breaks the copyright bargain. It seems to me that it goes unrecognized too often that if a work of art, including video games, isn’t guaranteed to end up in the public domain eventually, then it shouldn’t be granted a copyright in the first place.
But, for now, it’s nice to see the Stop Killing Games movement having taken the first legislative step. All that’s left now is a whole lot of waiting, advocacy, and combat to be done with adverse lobbying dollars.
Just to be clear, when I refer to “Trump” in terms of his administration, I’m referring to the collective hive mind of dangerous enablers he employs. Trump, by himself, is incapable of closing an umbrella. It’s the people around him that are dangerous, since they’re able to convert his rants and brain stem impulses into action.
While it’s understandable that an aspiring autocrat like Trump would feel threatened by a movement dedicated to opposing fascists, it’s only now that he’s returned to office that he can do anything about it. Deliberately ignoring the fact that the most dangerous domestic terrorists are located on the far right of the political spectrum (including the hundreds of people he pardoned for assaulting police officers and raiding a federal building following his 2020 election loss), Trump’s administration is once again attempting to turn protected First Amendment activity into terroristic acts worthy of lengthy minimum federal sentences.
The United States was as concerned as always about Islamist terrorism, said the official, Monica A. Jacobsen, according to a copy of her prepared remarks reviewed by The New York Times and three officials briefed on the meeting. But, she told her counterparts from Europe, Canada and Australia, the Trump administration also wanted more attention on what it believed was an insidious, underestimated threat: the far left.
Western governments must combat “antifa and far-left terrorism,” Ms. Jacobsen’s prepared remarks asserted, casting the effort as an evolution in counterterrorism following the “global war on terror.” Her prepared speech defined far-left terrorism to include threats from communists, Marxists, anarchists, anticapitalists and those with “eco-extremist” and “other self-identified antifascist ideologies.”
“As always” is a nice touch. It’s always a good idea to keep an “Islamist” scapegoat in the yard, especially when you’re busy losing a war with Iran. Not only does it generate steady work for bored FBI agents, but it also allows Trump to continue pretending the mass deportation of hardworking, tax-paying non-whites is somehow contributing to the effort to root out an alleged “1,700 Iran sleeper cells” in the United States. (No “sleeper cell” has been broken up or deported despite Trump claiming the government already knows who these “sleepers” are and where they’re located.)
As evidence of the dangerousness of “far left” terrorists, Jacobsen pointed to a single protest in Milan, Italy, in which police and protesters “clashed” — the favorite euphemism deployed by people who wish readers to believe protesters were just as violent as law enforcement officers.
Meanwhile, the administration can’t actually find any hard evidence to back up its assertions about the supposed violent threat posed by far left activists.
In November, the State Department took the first major step in the strategy by designating four leftist groups in Europe — two in Greece, one in Germany and another in Italy — as terrorist organizations. None of the groups has been known to have plotted attacks on Americans in the past decade, which is usually a criterion for such a designation.
Even if you were to decide that what’s being claimed about “far left terrorism” in Europe by this administration is somehow true, you can’t ignore the facts on the ground here in the United States:
Over the past decade, right-wing extremists have killed 112 people across 152 terrorist attacks in the United States, according to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan research institution. Over the same period, left-wing extremists killed 13 people over 35 attacks, according to the analysis, while jihadist attacks left 82 dead.
Even if Trump hadn’t spent his entire term so far routinely insulting and berating our European allies, it’s still unlikely he would have been able to convince them to ignore the reality of the situation for the sole purpose of future abuses of civil liberties and rights.
Trump has been pounding this table since late last year, but now he’s finding fewer world leaders willing to indulge his fantasies or nod politely as Trump’s emissaries literally make shit up about left-wing activist groups.
The State Department wants to bring foreign law enforcement officials from at least 17 countries to The Hague in May for a workshop on how to fight far-left groups like antifa.
[…]
Formal invitations had not been sent as of last week, in part because Congress had to approve funding. U.S. officials told The Times that foreign governments had expressed less interest in the events than the State Department had hoped.
Once again, let’s pause to reflect on these claims. “Antifa” simply stands for “anti-fascist.” You barely have to move left at all to oppose fascism. All you would have to do is move to the left just far enough to align with… I don’t know… Ronald Reagan? And yet this administration is so stupid and thuggish that it actually thinks it can portray people opposed to fascism as more dangerous than US citizens who actively support it.
Everything else on Trump’s list of “domestic threats” is just a lazy rip-off of McCarthyism. “Far left” supposedly covers Communists, Marxists, “anti-capitalists” (yet another tell), and “eco-extremists.” In other words, people who disagree with this particular president and his policies. Free speech is what it is. But Trump and his enablers want people to go away for decades by turning dissent into terrorism.
Meanwhile, the true terrorist threat that is the extremely foreseeable result of the war in Iran is being back-burnered in favor of locking up people who just want to see this country remain a democratic republic. Fortunately for us, the rest of the world is no longer interested (Israel, Hungary, and Russia aside) in pretending Trump poses less of a threat than the people he wants to punish.
