According to Reuters, Washington is preparing the launch of a portal called freedom.gov, intended to allow Internet users located in Europe and elsewhere to access content blocked by their governments, including publications qualified as hate speech or terrorist propaganda. The project, led by the US Department of State, could include functionality similar to a VPN, so that user traffic appears to come from the United States. Those responsible would also mention the absence of activity tracing.
The initiative, if confirmed, would open a new front in the already very tense transatlantic digital relationship.
A divergence of design
This initiative faces the regulation put in place by the European Union. In a few years, Brussels has gradually structured a legal framework intended to govern the circulation of content and the responsibility of platforms. The General Data Protection Regulation has redefined the protection of personal data. The Digital Services Act (DSA) now imposes obligations on large platforms to remove illegal content, transparency and assess systemic risks.
This system is based on a concept shared by the Member States of Europe, based on a balance between freedom of expression, protection of fundamental rights and maintenance of public order.
🚨 SMARTJOBS
- ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE – Director/Deputy Director of International Relations (F/M)
- CLAROTY — Sales Development Representative
- CURE51 — Data Scientist (Internship)
- FRACTTAL — Account Manager (France)
- BRICKSAI — Founding Growth Manager
👉 Find all our offers on the DECODE MEDIA Jobboard
đź“© Are you recruiting and want to strengthen your employer brand? Discover our partner offers
The American project, as mentioned by Reuters, is part of another tradition. By preparing a portal allowing access to content blocked in certain European countries, the US Department of State would reflect a more extensive reading of freedom of expression, inspired by the First Amendment.
From regulation to infrastructure
Until now, the transatlantic digital standoff has mainly been deployed in the normative field: data protection, taxation of large platforms, competition law, responsibility of digital intermediaries. The disagreements are deep, but they are part of a classic clash between regulatory models.
With freedom.gov, Washington is changing register. It is no longer just a question of contesting the legitimacy of a European rule, but of concretely reducing its scope. If the portal effectively makes it possible to circumvent national blocking decisions, it establishes a form of assumed technical extraterritoriality, where a State makes available, from its own legal space, an infrastructure intended to render certain measures adopted elsewhere inoperative.
Of course, this initiative can only be read as an assumed offensive aimed at contesting the growing regulatory influence of the European Union and the weight it places on the development of GAFAM in Europe. It remains to be seen what the reaction of European political leaders will be to this new sequence of transatlantic tension.
