As Orwellian as it gets
Romanian Players of the Censorship-Industrial Complex Ask EU Commission for "Radical Transparency" in Accessing Data... Without Mentioning Once Transparency for Citizens
On February 12, a few media outlets and Romanian NGOs, aligned behind the “Expert Forum” group, sent an open letter to the European Commission, seeking to expand their “expert” access to social media data. In parallel, overseas, a discussion was unfolding in the United States at congressional hearings on the “Censorship-Industrial Complex”, featuring Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Rupa Subramanya.
The American journalists’ testimony exposed the alarming extent to which the media and numerous surrounding NGOs, rather than acting as a check on power, have become a government propaganda machine—one that often sees its role as shielding democracy from truth, dissenting opinions, and even the will of the people.
Unsurprisingly, among the Romanian signatories of the Expert Forum letter are:
- Figures who have had a disastrous record right after the first round of the Presidential election, participating in the obsessive campaign about a Russian influence to try to dismiss the brutal rebuke delivered by the voters. Their campaign ultimately contributed to voter suppression and the annulment of the whole process based on flimsy reasons.
- Participants in “fact-checking” abuses during the time of the pandemic and other so-called “hate-speech” fighters.
Moreover, in the absence of a legal framework in Romania that upholds the EU Media Charter’s requirement to prohibit intelligence services from infiltrating newsrooms, there is also a significant risk that several signatories may be directly acting under the orders of some factions of the executive branch.
Last but not least, a substantial number of the signatories have, directly or indirectly, benefited from funding provided by USAID, NED, OCCRP, or the U.S. State Department—funding that is at the heart of the ongoing scandal in the United States, discussed during the February 12 hearings. The issue is not merely that they received these funds, but that a few of those signatories actually used them to undermine free speech, perfectly exemplifying the concerns raised during the congressional hearing.
The initiative launched by Expert Forum is, on one hand, a continuation of the hybrid attack initiated on November 25 by various internal actors (and probably some European countries) against Romania’s democratic process.
On the other hand, this initiative is symptomatic of the critical turning point we are experiencing. One path goes towards more surveillance and speech police concentrated in the hands of a privileged caste; the other path goes towards a freer flow of information. Hopefully, the future does not lie with a press that is perpetually at odds with reality, stubbornly insisting on telling people “they’re wrong about things they can see with their own eyes” (as Matt Taibbi put it), backed by a network of censors, but rather with a press capable of producing high-quality content—one that prioritizes information over propaganda.
There are of course serious transparency issues with social media , but they cannot be solved by handing over verification to so-called “experts” in Romania who might, behind closed doors, orchestrate another Cambridge Analytica-style scandal. The risk is too high that access would be granted by a discretionary European bureaucracy only to those who please the unelected officials in Brussels. After the smear campaign that led to the annulment of the elections, there is a real danger that the only “experts” granted access would be those willing to weaponize the data against people who don't vote as desired. In my opinion, the real challenge is the lack of transparency for the public, not for a select few experts.
The individual—the citizen—must be granted full transparency regarding how the current black box of social media determines what content is shown to them—or withheld from them. The individual—the citizen—must be given complete transparency on how their messages are amplified or de-amplified by these platforms. The arbitrary nature of such measures, including those implemented by Romanian-language censors inside Facebook and TikTok—whose identities remain entirely unknown—, is the real problem that requires answers under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Fully open-sourcing the algorithms – as initially promoted by Elon Musk for Twitter/X – could be the best first step in giving users a sense that they’re not just victims of a machine dedicated to manufacturing consent. It certainly makes more sense than threatening to unplug the social network because “wrong-think” spreads; it also makes more sense than giving the thought police new tools to crack down on dissidents.
Ironically, the title of the Expert Forum open letter calls for “radical transparency in access to data”, yet it does not mention even once the issue of providing the users with some sort of tranparency. The word “user” appears only once, in this context:
“While APIs provide valuable data, they remain insufficient for studying algorithmic influence on user experiences and content amplification. Investigations into TikTok’s recommendation system, including the “heating button” that allows employees to manually boost content virality, must be accessible. Ideally, the DSA should facilitate exploratory research methodologies, including controlled experiments with algorithmic interventions and systematic data collection.”
This is as Orwellian as it gets: those who have actively distorted Romania’s information landscape now seek greater gatekeeping and surveillance powers on social media, all in the name of “transparency”.
We do not need to give them transparency about the rest of us. We need actual transparency for the citizens.
Stéphane Luçon
