Summary Free Expression & Information Censorship Advocates
A blog post documenting the Internet Archive's experience receiving 550+ false terrorist content reports from French EU agencies, used as evidence that proposed EU legislation requiring one-hour content removal would enable systematic censorship of legitimate educational, cultural, and scientific materials without meaningful human review, thereby violating freedom of expression and information access rights.
A clever circumvention of innocent until proven guilty - make disobedience carry huge legal risk. You must obey orders (takedown 'requests'), not backed by any court. If you fail, and one turns out to be legitimate, you get punished.
Imagine if you had to stop doing business with anyone reported as a thief (but not convicted).
Politicians do not care about the ramifications of this. They only care about granting themselves power over who sees what when through the guise of combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc. Posting a blog about this will change nothing.
In situations with notice-and-takedown like this, I always wonder why there aren't stronger protections against abuse. Should a platform or user who had their content ordered removed in error be able to receive damages? Should the lawyers or civil servants instigating these notices be disciplined for issuing erroneous, improper, or overly broad takedown notices be disciplined or blacklisted?
Funny how exactly EU follows the path Russia has recently taken. After Russia passed the law that banned online material promoting terrorist content, suicide, drug information and harm to children, and so on, there was an avalanche of false takedown requests and misidentifications, including attempting to block Wikipedia, ban Bhagavad Gita commentary (yes, really) and many more anecdotes that sound funny unless you live there. Now Russia has progressed to banning "insulting" the government publicly, i.e. direct ban on political dissent. I wonder how long it would be until EU does the same.
Not quite my circus, not quite my monkeys, but I wonder if it's possible to fight fire with fire.
Could a committed group of individuals report the most pernicious EU politicians' homepages and facebook pages as similarly banned content? Looks like the firehose has overwhelmed whatever inadequate safeguards they originally had in place.
Can anyone with a bit more information explain why the EU might have any saying as to what a San Francisco–based nonprofit digital library can and can not host?
Why does the proposed EU legislation have a 1-hour deadline? No matter what you think of the action it's trying to take, a 1-hour deadline is preposterous for anyone and seems expressly designed to force people to set up an automated process that acts on takedown notices without prior review. But who benefits from this?
About the only thing I can think of is if some big company, think Facebook or Google, lobbied for this because they're large enough that they can actually implement it with review, whereas anyone smaller can't.
Essentially, this is the DMCA for terrorist content. With a somewhat short time requirement driven by some recent events (New Zealand being the most prominent, but not first).
(It's a document highlighting the latest changes from committee, making it somewhat hard to read but not less interesting)
I'm not sure if it's fair to compare notices from the current program, which sends out notices without any legal force, to what this envisages. The directive sets out a process and requirements for notices, including detailed reasoning for each. It also specifically mentions avenues to protest (and sue) in cases of disagreements.
I'm no particular fan of this for both practical and philosophical reasons. If youtube had invested in some sort of oversight that prevented this kiwi neckbeard from live-streaming his massacre of innocents, the vote this week would probably have ended differently.
> The charges allege that Golaszewski was found with copies of 21 Silent Techniques of Killing by Master Hei Long, The Anarchist Cookbook and The Big Book of Mischief on 23 February in Leeds. It is also alleged that he had in his possession the Improvised Munitions Handbook, Murder Inc, The Book by Jack the Rippa, and Minimanual Of The Urban Guerilla, by Carlos Marighella.
The guy is charged with possession of six books, some of these books are likely to be present at archive.org
> Pawel Golaszewski faces six counts under the Terrorism Act and has been charged with possession of a document or record "containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Six books, six counts.
••••••••••
Unsure where is this heading. Does anyone think the law can stop technology?
Happened in Feb 2019 to a story on telegra.ph archived by me. It was scary first, then I asked the archive.org webmaster and I understood that it was a telegra.ph link, not because of the content. Now the archived link works OK. https://imgur.com/a/eJd4FeM
We don’t push back on the process, we push back on the principle.
The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is and isn’t.
The “process” probably has no more flaws than any other process designed and implemented by mortals, it just goes to demonstrate why the whole censor-the-internet idea is wrong.
It's a path that pre-dates the EU. We're a crowded continent with a huge amount of diversity and a long and bitter history of war. We have learned through bitter experience that, while free speech is a precious right, it is also an extremely dangerous one in the wrong circumstances. Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing incitement to go unchallenged.
Free speech is not unconditional in the US; there are many things that an American could say that would see them brought before the courts. European nations have simply drawn the line in a different place, for entirely understandable historical reasons.
I guess the same reason why police and government is allowed to lie to you, but if you lie to police or government you're a felon. Because they can. As long as people vote for such situation to continue, it continues.
It’s really hopeless each time one realizes how French and German politicians perceive the internet. For them the internet is not synonymous with the freedom of creativity and expression, but with the freedom to restrain and to control.
It's the voters will that allows them to use the guise of comabting hate speech, terrorism, child porn etc. Blogging about the negative repercussions of this behaviour help inform the opinions of voters and is exactly what you should do in a democracy.
The ability to smear through accusation, without proof, without due process, and without the presumption of innocence has always been the province of tyrants in power and the tool of would-be tyrants trying to gain power.
Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong" religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientation. In the past, people were smeared as being of the "wrong" racial background. Always be wary of those who smear to enforce their power.
A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance, and stand or fall on their character and merits. Evil is recognizable in its epistemological hazards:
- Don't ask questions.
- Don't read or hear the heretical opinion.
- Don't associate with the "wrong" people.
The side of good, the side of the long arc of justice, is the side of rational argument and of principles. The side of justice is the one saying, "hear me out."
It's the side of evil which uses vilification, seeks to silence, and uses fear against questions.
I think the idea of the 1 hour deadline is to pull it offline before others can download and repost it. The police/governments especially in Australia and New Zealand have worked out that there is simply no way to remove a file from the internet if someone else grabs it in time.
Its a fruitless effort and very dangerous when misused but thats what I assume they are trying to do anyway.
Quote: A referral activity (meaning the reporting of terrorist and extremist online content to the concerned OSP) does not constitute an enforceable act. Thus, the decision and removal of the referred terrorist and extremist online content is taken by the concerned service provider under their own responsibility and accountability (in reference to their Terms and Conditions).
I suspect laziness is a major factor. Half assed keyword searches and threatening emails are easy to implement. A real process with reasonable review and court oversight would take a lot of work.
That's how governments work. If you're the president and do something blatantly unconstitutional, the worst case is it gets overturned in the courts. If you're a citizen, you go to jail or worse.
Why else would you pursue a role in a system of abuse than to abuse and profit?
Yes, I would say that anyone calling for armed revolution would be classified as a terrorist by the government they opposed.
Governments tend not to take sides against other governments unless they want to go to war with them in some way. So you can imagine that in many cases most other governments would back the terrorist label.
This points out one of the big issues with the use of the word "terrorist" in today's world. It is a label that dominant organizations use against any group that presents a serious threat, regardless of the activities of that group.
A few weeks ago there was a case in Poland where a party that strongly supported article 11 and 13 was using copyrighted pictures and banners made by a small artist. The news was big in Poland, the party was notified, but they ignored the case, voted for art 11/13 anyway.
So do you think none of those people actually care about combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc? Or do you think they just see these things as usual tools to get power - and to what end exactly?
The CIO (!) of one of our clients seriously proposed that last year for a new big online B2C service. We were just laughing at that point, knowing the CEO will not go for that, but even the though process was scary, and made some sense.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.80
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing Coverage
Editorial
+0.80
SETL
+0.40
This is the article's primary focus. The author directly advocates against proposed legislation as a threat to freedom of expression and opinion. Argues that automated removal requirements would eliminate meaningful human judgment and effectively censor legitimate speech.
Observable Facts
The article states the EU is voting on legislation 'that would require websites that host user-generated content to take down material reported as terrorist content within one hour.'
The author argues: 'Thus, we are left to ask – how can the proposed legislation realistically be said to honor freedom of speech if these are the types of reports that are currently coming from EU law enforcement?'
The article cites specific examples of legitimate content (arXiv papers, C-SPAN broadcasts, scholarly articles, Grateful Dead recordings) flagged as terrorist propaganda.
Inferences
By presenting false positives, the author demonstrates that the one-hour requirement would inevitably suppress legitimate expression.
The framing positions freedom of speech as fundamentally incompatible with automated censorship systems.
The article advocates that meaningful protection of Article 19 requires human review before content removal.
+0.70
PreamblePreamble
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
+0.37
The content advocates for preserving human dignity and freedom central to the UDHR preamble by challenging legislation that would strip due process and restrict information access.
Observable Facts
The article states: 'the free sharing of information and freedom of speech that the European Union pledges to safeguard.'
The author presents Internet Archive as a custodian of millions of items preserved for public knowledge.
Inferences
The author invokes preamble-level principles (dignity, freedom) as the foundation for opposing the proposed legislation.
The framing positions information access as foundational to human flourishing.
+0.50
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
-0.24
Content directly advocates for preservation of cultural and scientific material, presenting specific examples of scholarly and cultural works threatened by false removal notices.
Observable Facts
The article notes falsely flagged URLs include: 'archive.org/details/GratefulDead', 'archive.org/details/arxiv', 'archive.org/details/television', 'archive.org/details/animation', collections explicitly focused on cultural and scientific preservation.
The author presents arXiv papers (mathematics, physics, computer science) as being threatened, positioning scientific knowledge as at risk.
The correction notes the sender is 'the French national Internet Referral Unit,' emphasizing state involvement in culture/science gatekeeping.
Inferences
By showcasing cultural and scientific materials among false positives, the author argues that Article 27 rights are threatened by automated takedown systems.
The framing positions information access as foundational to scientific and cultural participation.
The article implies that preservation of cultural heritage requires protection from unreviewed removal.
+0.40
Article 26Education
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
-0.22
Content advocates for protecting educational materials from removal, citing false flagging of scholarly resources. Argues that education access requires free information preservation.
Observable Facts
The article lists major educational collections threatened with removal: 'archive.org/details/texts', 'archive.org/details/arxiv', 'archive.org/details/pubmed'.
The author notes falsely flagged materials include 'scholarly articles' and US government educational broadcasts.
Internet Archive's mission statement emphasizes providing universal access to human knowledge.
Inferences
By highlighting educational content in the false reports, the author demonstrates that the legislation endangers right to education.
The framing connects information access to educational rights protection.
+0.30
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
High Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND
Content advocates for presumption of legitimacy and due process, arguing that content should not be treated as prohibited without review.
Observable Facts
The author notes that URLs are 'falsely identified' and 'mistaken,' implying they should be presumed legitimate until proper review.
The article states: 'The one-hour requirement essentially means that we would need to take reported URLs down automatically and do our best to review them after the fact.'
Inferences
By emphasizing the word 'falsely,' the author assumes content should be presumed non-violent until evidence proves otherwise.
The critique of post-removal review implies that proper procedure requires pre-removal examination, consistent with presumption of innocence principles.
+0.30
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.24
Content advocates that rights protection requires preventing states from using law enforcement overreach to restrict freedom of expression and information access.
Observable Facts
The article argues that automatic content removal 'essentially means that we would need to take reported URLs down automatically and do our best to review them after the fact,' violating proper legal procedure.
The author questions how legislation can be reconciled with UDHR commitments: 'Thus, we are left to ask – how can the proposed legislation realistically be said to honor freedom of speech?'
Inferences
The author frames the legislation as enabling states to destroy rights rather than protect them.
The article advocates that Article 30 requires procedural safeguards against law enforcement overreach in information control.
+0.20
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
The content implicitly raises concerns about unequal treatment: legitimate scholarly and cultural content is treated identically to actual harmful material.
Observable Facts
The article lists 550+ falsely identified URLs without meaningful differentiation between collection pages, scholarly articles, and government broadcasts.
The author notes the same URL was flagged by two different agencies without independent review.
Inferences
By presenting these false equivalencies, the author suggests that automated systems fail to distinguish between rights-protected and prohibited content.
The framing implies discriminatory application of terrorist content designations.
+0.20
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Content raises concerns about equal protection under law when legitimate content is subject to same removal procedures as genuinely prohibited material.
Observable Facts
The article presents examples of falsely flagged major collection pages (texts, americana, arxiv) placed on same removal lists as potentially harmful content.
The author notes that reporting entities apply same procedures to obviously legitimate scholarly work as to flagged terrorist materials.
Inferences
The author implies that equal protection requires differentiation in how content is reviewed and treated.
The framing suggests government agencies are not providing equal treatment to different categories of users or content.
+0.20
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Content implicitly advocates for effective remedy against wrongful content removal, noting that one-hour requirement precludes meaningful review.
Observable Facts
The author states: 'It is not possible for us to process these reports using human review within a very limited timeframe like one hour.'
The article notes the Archive must choose between taking content down automatically or risking legal consequences.
Inferences
The author implies that lack of review mechanism violates the right to seek remedy for wrongful removal.
The framing suggests current procedures prevent meaningful access to redress.
+0.20
Article 17Property
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.14
Content raises concerns about loss of access to information and digital property through removal without due process.
Observable Facts
The article lists specific URLs that are at risk of removal, treating them as valuable preserved property.
The author emphasizes that 'major collection pages' containing 'millions of items' are threatened.
Inferences
The framing treats archived content as a form of public property or commons that warrants protection.
The author implies that loss of access violates a property or access right.
+0.20
Article 28Social & International Order
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Content implicitly critiques international governance order by questioning how EU legislation can serve international human rights commitments.
Observable Facts
The article references 'the international human rights pledges' that EU claims to uphold.
Inferences
The author frames the legislation as contradicting international human rights order and commitments.
The critique implies governance systems should be ordered to protect universal human rights.
+0.10
Article 12Privacy
Low
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND
Content does not directly address privacy or reputation, though threat of removal raises implicit concerns about information preservation.
Observable Facts
The article discusses removal threats to URLs but does not explicitly address privacy or personal reputation.
Inferences
The threat of content removal implies concerns about preservation of information and historical record.
+0.10
Article 21Political Participation
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND
Content implicitly critiques democratic governance by questioning how legislation can be consistent with democratic values when it produces these harmful effects.
Observable Facts
The article asks rhetorically whether proposed legislation can be reconciled with European democratic commitments to freedom.
Inferences
The author frames the legislation as incompatible with democratic principles of governance.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No direct engagement with universal equality of rights and dignity.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
No direct engagement with right to life, liberty, and security.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No engagement with freedom from slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No engagement with freedom from torture or cruel treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No engagement with right to recognition as person before law.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No direct engagement with arbitrary arrest or detention.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No direct engagement with right to fair and public hearing.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No engagement with freedom of movement within borders.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No engagement with right to seek asylum.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No engagement with right to nationality.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No engagement with family and marriage rights.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No direct engagement with freedom of conscience, thought, or belief.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No engagement with freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No engagement with social security and welfare rights.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
No engagement with labor rights and work.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No engagement with rest and leisure rights.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
No engagement with standard of living and health.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
No engagement with duties to community.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.60
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing Coverage
Structural
+0.60
Context Modifier
+0.30
SETL
+0.40
Internet Archive's core structural mission is preservation and free access to information, directly supporting freedom of expression.
+0.60
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
+0.60
Context Modifier
+0.30
SETL
-0.24
Internet Archive's stated mission is preservation and free access to cultural, scientific, and historical materials.
+0.50
PreamblePreamble
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
+0.50
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.37
Internet Archive's foundational mission aligns with preamble principles of universal human dignity and access to knowledge.
+0.50
Article 26Education
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
+0.50
Context Modifier
+0.30
SETL
-0.22
Internet Archive provides free, open access to vast educational and scholarly materials without economic barriers.
+0.10
Article 17Property
Medium Framing
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.14
Internet Archive structurally provides free access to preserve public digital property.
+0.10
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.24
Internet Archive's existence and operation demonstrates structural commitment to preventing erasure of knowledge.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Medium Framing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Advocacy
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
High Framing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Low
Privacy protections handled by cached DCP modifier.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Low Framing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Low Framing
No observable structural engagement.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
No observable structural engagement.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.71
Propaganda Flags
2techniques detected
appeal to fear
The article frames the one-hour removal requirement as creating a system where 'we would need to take reported URLs down automatically,' suggesting inevitable large-scale censorship without presenting counterarguments.
repetition
The phrase '550 falsely identified URLs' and the list of false positives are repeated multiple times to emphasize scale and establish credibility through accumulation of examples.
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
7 events
2026-02-26 22:02
eval_success
Evaluated: Mild positive (0.11)
--
2026-02-26 22:02
rater_validation_warn
Validation warnings for model llama-4-scout-wai: 27W 27R
--
2026-02-26 21:27
eval_success
Evaluated: Neutral (0.34)
--
2026-02-26 21:26
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content