European Domain Registries Push Back Against EU Disinformation Shield, Citing Overreach and Risk to Free Speech
BRUSSELS – A clash is brewing between the European Union and the organizations that manage Europe’s internet infrastructure over the bloc’s ambitious plan to combat disinformation. The European Democracy Shield (EUDS), designed to protect democratic processes from foreign interference, has drawn sharp criticism from CENTR, the Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries. CENTR argues that the EUDS, in its current form, risks undermining fundamental rights and oversteps the technical role of domain name registries. The debate centers on the delicate balance between safeguarding democratic values and preserving the open and accessible nature of the internet.
At the heart of the contention is the potential for the EUDS to empower domain registries to suspend websites accused of spreading disinformation. CENTR, representing organizations that manage country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) like .de for Germany or .fr for France, vehemently opposes this provision. They argue that such power should remain exclusively with judicial authorities, not private entities or third-party fact-checkers. Domain registries, they emphasize, are technical facilitators, not content arbiters. Their role is to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet’s addressing system, not to police the content flowing through it. Granting them the authority to suspend domains based on accusations of disinformation, they warn, would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to censorship and the suppression of legitimate speech.
CENTR contends that existing EU legislation, particularly the recently enacted Digital Services Act (DSA), already provides a robust framework for addressing harmful content online. The DSA establishes clear rules for online platforms to moderate illegal content and cooperate with authorities in investigations. While disinformation poses a serious threat to democratic processes, CENTR points out that it is not uniformly classified as illegal across the EU. Therefore, any action taken against websites accused of spreading disinformation must be grounded in clear legal mandates and follow due process. Domain suspension, they argue, is a blunt instrument with global ramifications that should only be used in the most severe cases, where the content is demonstrably illegal and poses a significant threat.
Furthermore, CENTR raises concerns about the potential for collateral damage. Suspending a domain name effectively silences all content hosted on that domain, not just the allegedly harmful material. This could inadvertently suppress legitimate speech, including critical journalism, political commentary, and academic research. The organization emphasizes that the internet’s strength lies in its decentralized nature and the free flow of information. Empowering private entities to restrict access to domains based on subjective assessments of disinformation risks undermining this fundamental principle and creating a fragmented, censored internet.
Instead of relying on domain suspensions, CENTR advocates for a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes media literacy, critical thinking, and public awareness campaigns. They believe that empowering users to identify and critically evaluate online information is more effective than attempting to control the flow of information through technical measures. They also call for strengthening public-private partnerships to develop tools and resources that help users navigate the complex online landscape and identify credible sources of information. Such an approach, they argue, would be more sustainable and less prone to abuse than relying on domain suspensions.
The EU’s push for greater control over online content reflects a growing global trend. Governments worldwide are grappling with the challenge of combating disinformation and foreign interference in their democratic processes. However, finding the right balance between protecting democratic values and preserving fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, remains a complex and contentious issue. The debate surrounding the EUDS highlights the tension between these competing interests and underscores the need for a careful and nuanced approach that respects the technical realities of the internet while upholding democratic principles. As the EU moves forward with its plans, it will need to address the concerns raised by CENTR and other stakeholders to ensure that its efforts to combat disinformation do not inadvertently undermine the very freedoms it seeks to protect. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of the internet and the balance between security and freedom in the digital age.
