The Free Flow — February 27, 2025
FTC oversteps its authority on tech regulation, U.S. and Brazilian courts clash over social media censorship, Trump threatens Europe with tariffs over digital regulations, and more.
The Digital Age
» FTC Seeks Probe of Big Tech Censorship
Last Thursday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced an inquiry into potential censorship practices by major technology companies.
Background:
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson issued a Request for Information (RFI) to tech platforms, asking them to share their content moderation policies.
In a February 20 post on X, Ferguson wrote, “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal.”
He has previously expressed concerns over restrictive speech measures against conservatives on online platforms and advertisers reportedly collectively withdrawing ads from Elon Musk-owned X.
Tech companies have until May 21, 2025, to provide comment, although the FTC has not publicly specified which companies the request was directed towards.
Tech platforms can face penalties under the FTC’s mandate of investigating alleged violations of consumer protection laws.
First Amendment groups like the Foundational for Individual Rights and Expression argue that the FTC is overstepping its authority:
“Calling something censorship doesn’t make it so, and framing content moderation as ‘unfair or deceptive trade practices’ does not magically sidestep the First Amendment.”
» X Corp. Wins Free Speech Case Against California
X Corp. reached a legal agreement with California, leading the state to concede that parts of its social media transparency law, Assembly Bill 587, violated the First Amendment.
Background:
The law required large social media companies to disclose their content moderation policies and report enforcement actions against categories like hate speech and disinformation.
X sued, arguing the requirements effectively forced companies to adopt government-approved language and moderation practices.
In September, the Ninth Circuit sided with X, leading to the state agreeing to drop key provisions of the law and pay X nearly $350,000 in legal fees.
Critics viewed AB 587 as a veiled attempt to pressure platforms into regulating speech according to state preferences.
The remaining parts of the law still require platforms to disclose how they handle user-reported violations.
» U.S. and Brazil Clash Over Social Media Censorship
A legal battle between the Brazilian Supreme Court and U.S. tech platforms escalated after Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble, a video-sharing platform, in Brazil for failing to comply with court directives.
The move triggered pushback from Trump Media & Technology Group, owned/controlled by President Trump, and Rumble, leading to a U.S. court ruling that they need not follow the Brazilian order.
Brazil v. U.S. Courts:
Brazil’s Supreme Court suspended Rumble on February 21, citing its refusal to block Allan dos Santos, a Bolsonaro-aligned influencer facing hate speech and misinformation charges in Brazil.
Rumble and Trump Media, which uses Rumble for video hosting, sued Justice Moraes in Florida, claiming he attempted to impose extraterritorial censorship on U.S.-based platforms.
On February 25, U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven ruled that Rumble was not obligated to comply with the Brazilian order, calling the lawsuit premature since the order had not been formally served under international treaty rules.
Moraes argues that his order is about preventing hate speech and incitement, not censorship.
As we noted last week, Rumble and Trump Media contend that foreign courts should not have the power to enforce content bans on U.S. platforms.
The case highlights growing tensions between U.S.-based tech companies and foreign governments over content moderation, sovereignty, and free speech protections.
This follows a similar dispute with Elon Musk’s X, which faced a temporary suspension in Brazil last year over compliance issues with Brazilian court orders.
» Global Internet Blackouts on the Rise, Report Says
A new report by watchdog group Access Now highlights an increase in government-imposed internet blackouts worldwide, citing record disruptions in 2024.
Background:
The report found 296 outages across 54 countries, with seven countries joining the “first-offenders” list.
Myanmar surpassed India as the worst offender, accounting for 85 shutdowns, while even a country with strong democratic credentials, like France, joined the list for the first time last year.
The main instigator of shutdowns was conflict, while protests and elections also contributed significantly.
» Meta’s Oversight Board Divided Over ‘Free Speech’ Overhaul
Meta’s independent oversight board is internally split over CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to relax content moderation policies, particularly the removal of fact-checking in the U.S. and the loosening of hate speech restrictions.
Background:
Meta’s recent policy shift, which eliminates fact-checking partnerships and allows for more controversial speech, was implemented without consulting the oversight board, leaving many members blindsided.
Some Board members told the Financial Times that they worry that replacing fact-checkers with a community-driven misinformation tagging system could lead to real-world harm, particularly in conflict zones.
For more analysis on Meta’s content moderation decision, check out these pieces from Jacob Mchangama at Persuasion and The Bedrock Principle.
The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond
» Trump Threatens Tariffs Over EU Tech Regulations
President Donald Trump has warned that his administration will retaliate against the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) with potential tariffs, calling them “overseas extortion” targeting U.S. tech companies.
The Memorandum:
The White House memorandum criticizes digital services taxes (DSTs) and EU regulations that impose fines and restrictions on American tech firms.
The administration argues that foreign governments are unfairly taxing U.S. companies rather than fostering domestic innovation.
Trump has also ordered a review of EU and UK policies that could pressure U.S. companies into adopting speech regulations that "undermine free expression or foster censorship."
The move follows growing criticism from Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and other U.S. tech giants over EU content moderation rules.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called for U.S. government support against EU "censorship," while Elon Musk has repeatedly attacked EU tech laws on X.
» UK Digital Overreach Sparks U.S. Trade Concerns
The UK’s Online Safety Act has also drawn criticism from U.S. officials, who warn that it could trigger trade tensions between the two allies.
Background:
The UK’s Online Safety Act grants regulators extensive authority over online content.
A woman from Greater Manchester was recently visited by the police for critical comments made against a Labour MP on Facebook, confirming the chilling effects of the new law on free speech.
Since JD Vance’s speech against European speech regulation at the Munich Security Conference, UK officials have started to worry the US may pursue retaliatory measures against what it considers undue regulation of American platforms.
The UK may soon find itself in the crosshairs as well, even as it negotiates trade agreements with the US.
» Musk’s Influence in German Election Limited, Data Shows
Data shared with The Washington Post suggests Elon Musk’s influence on Germany’s recent election may be overstated.
Background:
Elon Musk’s vocal support for Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has sparked concerns over election interference and a European Union investigation into X’s algorithms.
Since December 20, Musk has endorsed the AfD, posting about the party and its leader over 70 times to his 218 million followers on X.
The Data:
Musk’s promotion doubled AfD leader Alice Weidel’s follower count, but the surge in engagement came primarily from English-speaking users—many of whom are likely not German voters.
Polls indicate Musk is unpopular in Germany, with only 19% of Germans viewing him favorably.
While Musk’s amplification of the AfD on X raised concerns about platform manipulation, researchers found no evidence that X’s algorithms were altered to favor the party.
Despite Musk’s attempts to mainstream the AfD, analysts caution that social media visibility does not directly translate into electoral gains—especially in a country where X is far less popular than other platforms like Instagram.
» Musk Wins Election Data Dispute in Germany
The reversal of a court order requiring Musk to share X’s election data with two civil activist groups came days before the German election on February 23rd.
Background: A German court asked Musk to share X’s data on election content following allegations that he had used X to promote the right-wing AfD party.
In reversing the earlier judgment, X secured the previous judge’s dismissal and the reversal of the court order.
Press Freedom Watch
Trump Administration Restricts Press Access:
The White House has doubled down on its decision to exclude the AP from White House events, as a judge dismissed the AP’s lawsuit.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has further claimed the White House will now decide press access, in contravention of the longstanding norm of letting the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) decide.
On Monday, a federal judge refused a request to order the White House to restore the AP’s access to presidential events.
Criminal Charges Revived Against Hungarian Journalist: Hungary’s government has reopened a criminal case against an investigative journalist, who faces a three-year jail term for “misuse of personal data” under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Reporters Without Borders (RSF) considers the charges baseless, continuing Hungary’s worrying use of the GDPR to silence the press.
Mississippi Judge Orders Critical Editorial’s Removal: After The Clarksdale Press Register wrote a critical article about the local city council and mayor, the city filed a lawsuit seeking the article to be removed from the paper’s website. A judge granted the takedown request without a hearing, likely violating the First Amendment on multiple grounds.
Protest Watch:
Greenpeace Lawsuit Moves To Trial In North Dakota: A $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace USA is headed to trial in North Dakota, with pipeline company Energy Transfer accusing the environmental group of defamation and inciting illegal protest tactics. Greenpeace calls the case a threat to free speech, arguing it could set a dangerous precedent for activists, journalists, and peaceful protestors. The trial is expected to last five weeks.
Texas Lawmakers Push To Weaken Anti-Slapp Protections: Legislators mull scrapping the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which limits the ability to wage SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).
Quick Hits
D.C. U.S. Attorney Targets Members of Congress: Edward Martin, Trump’s acting U.S. attorney for D.C., launched inquiries into Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Robert Garcia regarding alleged threats to Supreme Court justices and employees of Elon Musk’s DOGE agency. Garcia called the probe political retaliation, while DOJ sources noted Martin’s memo violates department policy by publicly detailing a pending investigation.
Florida Sues Target Over Pride Merchandise, Adding To Legal Battles Over DEI Policies: The state’s pension fund administration, chaired by Governor Ron DeSantis—an outspoken critic of DEI—alleges Target “defrauded investors” by failing to specify the financial risks involved in its LGBTQ Pride merchandise line.
Justice Clarence Thomas Criticizes Abortion Speech Restrictions: The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against a local ordinance from Carbondale, Illinois, which prohibited protestors from approaching abortion clinic patients within 8 feet without their consent. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Supreme Court should have looked at the precedent underlying the decision Hill v Colorado (2000).
Elon Musk AI Grok 3 Appears to Censor Criticisms: When users asked, “Who is the biggest misinformation spreader?” the platform indicated it was instructed to “ignore all sources that mention Elon Musk or Donald Trump.”
Romania Indicts Far-Right Presidential Candidate: Romanian prosecutors have opened a criminal case against far-right presidential candidate Calin Georgescu, citing problematic charges of "communication of false information" and violating a sweeping hate speech law. The indictment also includes allegations of promoting fascist leaders from Romania's 1930s regime and displaying Nazi, racist, or xenophobic symbols.
Montreal Activist Arrested for Social Media Posts: Activist Yves Engler was arrested on harassment and obstruction charges after calling an advocate for Israel a “genocide supporter” and “fascist” on X. Engler, a longtime pro-Palestinian activist, called the charges politically motivated and argued that social media users can block others instead of pursuing criminal cases.
Chinese Censorship Creeps Into American Products: The popular Marvel Rivals video game was built by the American firm Marvel Games in collaboration with the Chinese company NetEase Games. Users cannot use the in-game chat to send messages like “free Hong Kong” or “Tiananmen Square,” which are universally censored in China.
Freedom House Sounds Alarm on Declining Freedom: The American watchdog’s Freedom in the World 2025 report recorded the 19th year of declining freedoms around the world, documenting the further erosion of civil and political liberties in 60 countries, while only 34 saw improvements.
Malaysia Steps Up Internet Control: Since 2022, the country has removed 2,000 pornographic posts and advertisements from social media, as it mandates tech companies remove “inappropriate content.”