Counter-Disinformation Conference Raises Controversial Suggestions
At a recent conference focused on “Counter-Disinformation” held at the University of Cambridge, European technologist Robin Version proposed that addressing the influence of American tech platforms might require “military force.”
“I’m not saying we should go after Google immediately,” Version clarified. “But if regulation is the goal, we have to be ready to use coercive measures too.”
During another part of the discussion, he elaborated, stating, “It’s not exactly what I desire, but the more we press, the more they might react. We just need to be prepared for that.” His remarks are not from an isolated viewpoint; they mirror a growing anxiety and animosity towards American tech giants that has escalated in Europe over the past year and a half, particularly since President Trump’s second inauguration.
For the past two decades, there’s been a notable silence regarding the dominance of American tech companies. From the late 2000s onward, giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook faced little challenge in Europe. Political leaders had no major complaints, mainly because American firms seemed to be okay with silencing political dissent, whether it was figures like British Tommy Robinson or certain French feminists.
Europe’s approach to countering U.S. tech influence might take one of two paths. The first aims to apply European and UK regulations regarding hate speech and misinformation to American firms. For instance, EU’s Digital Services Act and UK’s Online Safety Act have already begun to affect how X, formerly known as Twitter, handles content moderation. This includes collaborating with so-called “expert” organizations on content oversight. Recently, they even projected a $140 million fine on X for attempting to create an independent revenue model beyond ad reliance. Additionally, law enforcement has faced challenges regarding granting “disinformation” experts access to X’s API data.
This strategy doesn’t aim to replace U.S. tech platforms but attempts to revert to a state of political censorship reminiscent of the Biden administration’s influence, as many organizations pushing for the Digital Services Act were partly motivated by earlier American policies encouraging such restrictions.
While this maneuver is subtle, it still acknowledges American technological superiority. It’s less extreme than the current serious European proposition for “digital sovereignty,” which seeks to create a total separation from American tech. One of the most ambitious projects is the Eurostack initiative, laid out in a detailed report from the Bertelsmann Foundation in February 2025, organized by economist Francesca Bria.
The report begins with the premise of European reliance on American technology—over 80% of Europe’s digital infrastructure is imported, and a significant proportion of advanced AI models come from the U.S. Interestingly, European companies account for merely 7% of global software and internet research funding.
To address this disparity, the Eurostack blueprint suggests an extensive industrial strategy to cultivate an indigenous tech ecosystem, encompassing everything from semiconductors to cloud services and software, countering the dominance of non-European companies.
Bertelsmann’s analysis estimates that this transformative effort would require around €300 billion over a decade, with funding from partnerships between public and private sectors across Europe.
Some might argue that if the goal is sovereignty, it is somewhat reasonable. Shouldn’t Europe have its tech ecosystem? Yet, the absence of critique towards American tech during significant censorship periods reveals that the real aim may be to suppress dissent within Europe itself.
This becomes evident in the Eurostack report, which claims that American tech platforms foster “fake news” and “extremist ideologies.” The authors assert that Silicon Valley’s algorithms often promote “sensational content,” deepening social divides and undermining democratic discourse.
The lead author has even described American tech under Trump as evolving into “techno-nationalism,” suggesting an “authoritarian political project” with anti-democratic roots.
As extreme as it may sound, the Eurostack initiative is gaining traction. It has backing from the European Parliament’s ITRE Committee, formal recognition by France and Germany, and support from over 200 European firms. Even with a hefty price tag of €300 billion, momentum is building to bring Eurostack to fruition.
European authorities are increasingly aware of pushback against their own expansive censorship measures, as illustrated by a recent online exchange involving the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Notably, the French government didn’t defend its own policies, but rather supported Germany’s censorship practices.
Thus, the conflict with technology has two sides: On one hand, the stringent Digital Services Act threatens heavy fines and could potentially shut American tech companies out of European markets. On the other hand, government-backed initiatives are working to create a European alternative, driven by a fierce desire for unimpeded control over local dissent.
What can be done in response? Certainly, there can be diplomatic efforts. The previous U.S. administration’s State Department deserves credit for advocating for free expression globally and condemning foreign censorship. Maybe there’s room for reinforcing trade and security agreements with Europe contingent on reducing hostilities toward American tech.
Another solution is domestic. The Eurostack report rightly identifies data centers as essential for the tech industry and calls for state funding to compare to substantial U.S. investment in tech infrastructure, with an emphasis on renewable resources for these developments. Even though crucial, the report clearly indicates that such initiatives are vital for the future of the technology sector.
If Europeans, known for being more cautious regarding energy politics, can recognize this need, it serves as a reminder for Americans—particularly conservatives—not to hastily support foreign government initiatives while they seek to disrupt their own technological landscape.
Above all, it’s important to note that the rising animosity towards tech companies isn’t purely a tech issue; it’s deeply political. European leaders are focused on censoring their right-wing opposition and are frustrated by American tech’s ambivalence toward their objectives.
In a landscape where a large portion of technology is concentrated in the U.S., it’s a boon for both Americans and everyday Europeans that protections like the First Amendment, along with actions from the Trump administration, have helped curb the extremes of online censorship. Perhaps, it’s best to leave things as they are.
