​

 

Date: 24th of December, 2025

 

The CIW condemns the U.S. sanctions imposed, which assert that certain individuals and organizations have “led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” The announcement titled “Announcement of Actions to Combat the Global Censorship-Industrial Complex” is factually inaccurate and misleading, for the following reasons:

​

Monopolization of Global Technologies

​

United States–based Big Tech companies exercise a monopolistic or near-monopolistic position over global digital technologies and platforms that are used by billions of U.S. and non-U.S. citizens. Such use persists even in jurisdictions where U.S. technologies are formally restricted or banned, as demonstrated by widespread reliance on virtual private networks (VPNs), including in countries such as the Russian Federation. These platforms therefore, operate as de facto global infrastructures, not merely domestic American services.

​

Sovereign Right to Regulate Foreign Technologies

​

Every sovereign state, including Member States of the European Union, retains the lawful right to regulate foreign technologies operating within its jurisdiction in accordance with its own constitutional values, democratic standards, and legal frameworks. This right is particularly applicable where algorithmic systems, such as those employed by U.S.-based platforms (e.g., X) or Chinese-based platforms (e.g., TikTok), systematically amplify specific political content, including far-right or far-left material, to non-partisan users, as evidenced by cases involving disproportionate exposure to AfD-related content in Germany. Such algorithmic steering undermines pluralism and damages the integrity of informed democratic decision-making.

​

Inconsistency in U.S. Regulatory Practice

​

The assertion that foreign regulation of U.S. technologies constitutes impermissible censorship is inconsistent with U.S. practice. The United States has itself compelled foreign technology companies, including Chinese Big Tech TikTok, to divest, sell assets, or face prohibition within U.S. territory.

​

This demonstrates that while the United States imposes protectionist measures and restrictions on foreign Big Tech companies, viewing them as a legitimate exercise of sovereign authority, it sanctions individuals which measures consist only of proportionate, non-protectionist, mild regulatory interventions aligned with the fulfillment of the human and digital rights of its own citizens.

​

Freedom of Speech and Algorithmic Governance

​

Freedom of speech cannot reasonably be defined as a condition in which a few private owners of U.S. technology companies unilaterally shape algorithmic systems that influence the information environment of billions of non-American citizens, particularly when such influence results in the amplification of disinformation, hate speech, or misleading narratives. In these cases, regulatory and coercive measures are justified to constrain harmful speech, because freedom of speech should not be exercised in a way that obliterates opposition or undermines democratic values and good practices, even within the context of regular political competition among opponents.

​

​Regulation of Disinformation Actors: 

​

The regulation and restriction of disinformation actors operating within non-U.S. jurisdictions, particularly where such actors are funded to spread disinformation primarily aimed at U.S. audiences, does not constitute the suppression of American viewpoints. Rather, it represents a legitimate and necessary measure to protect information integrity and democratic processes within sovereign states.

​

Credibility of the Sanctioning Actors:

​

Several officials in the current U.S. administration, some of whom have received funding from fossil fuel interests, have promoted political messaging that aligns with climate denial narratives. This alignment is also reflected in actions such as the removal of climate science information from Environmental Protection Agency websites, including data on human-driven climate change and its potential effects on public health, air quality, and the economy. Taken together, these actions raise significant questions regarding their consistency with principles of free speech and the integrity of public information.