The European Commission decided last Wednesday to block Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik across the EU. The Russian media outlets – both state-owned – are said to spread dangerous disinformation.
What was your first reaction to that block?
‘At first I wasn’t concerned. It seemed that it was only about the broadcasts of RT and Sputnik, and they do not broadcast in the Netherlands at all. Then such a measure has no effect. But later the blockade was explained much more broadly: we also have to take their websites off the air. Then an alarm bell went off in my mind: what is actually happening here?
‘The Public Prosecution Service has also indicated that they will enforce it, so we have to implement the blockade. Otherwise they can impose penalties, criminally prosecute executives or even close down the company.’
RT and Sputnik regularly disseminate misleading or demonstrably false information. Why is it so bad that this information is blocked in the Netherlands?
First of all, the war in Ukraine is terrible and I want to distance myself completely from the content of these propaganda sites. But the erection of such website blockages has never happened before. Is that what we want?
‘The idea of countering disinformation with censorship doesn’t feel right. We fight for an open internet, without blockages. In Europe we speak shame of the increasing censorship in Russia, but now we are doing it ourselves.
‘It also feels like an emotional, hasty and insufficiently tested decision. The regulation was put together very quickly, and in many respects unclear. The blockade should last “until the aggression in Ukraine ends, and until the Russian Federation and affiliated media stop their campaigns of disinformation and manipulation against the EU and its member states.” That raises a lot of questions for me. Who decides when that is the case?
“I wonder if this action is proportionate. Decisions are now made in a crisis situation with major consequences in the longer term. I’m afraid this is setting a precedent. Are we going to block even more media?’
What kind of precedent would that be?
‘That the EU will more often refer to things as unwanted information, and block them. It is completely unclear to me why these two media were singled out, and not the others. There are still more platforms that spread propaganda, what is the selection criterion?
‘In the future, it won’t have to be just about Russian propaganda channels. If we start to consider it normal that the EU can block media throughout Europe by decree, that could have far-reaching consequences.’
So what can we do to prevent the spread of disinformation?
‘There must be a fixed procedure for determining what disinformation is, and we must make agreements about how we can combat it. What I now see is that fake news is being fought on the basis of panic football, and that companies are taking matters into their own hands. Then there is no independent assessment of what fake news is.
‘I doubt whether the measure makes any sense. The attention for these sites will probably only increase now that they are blocked. Anyone who wants this information will get it anyway. The channels are blocked in the EU, but not outside of it. So it’s a flawed solution that can easily be circumvented.’
In your opinion, are there any circumstances under which blocking news websites is permissible?
‘Maybe, but then there must be a procedure for that. Normally, a judge is involved if one wants to block a website. They check whether the content is acceptable, and if not, we take it offline. But that judicial intervention has now been skipped.’
You are now considering legal action to unblock the block. Why would this decision be illegal?
‘Firstly, the regulation is unclear and multi-interpretable. In the Netherlands it is explained in such a way that we also have to block websites, but not in other Member States. So there needs to be clarity about that.
‘We also have questions about the fundamental aspect. Under what circumstances do we as a democratic society agree to blocking websites? I think that’s a discussion we should have first. Now there is out of the blue introduced legislation that feels more like censorship than a deliberate way to fight fake news.’