Debate on 'deepening democracy' and web censorship in Spain

Forum debates 'deepening democracy' and website control

The scenario repeats itself whenever "democratic regeneration" is mentioned: someone suggests the need to "deepen democracy," and days later, the word censorship appears. The trigger for this discussion was a message summarizing the plan in one sentence: "According to him, to have a deepening of democracy: This site has its days numbered..." From there, the conversation shifted toward what many interpret as an attempt to control information circulating on the internet.

The issue is not minor. There is talk of regulating websites and opinions on social networks, combating disinformation, and establishing informational guarantees. One participant states that the EU has already set its priorities: fighting disinformation and information that, while true, could cause public order problems. The problem, critics point out, is who decides what constitutes a hoax and what does not.

What is proposed and why it generates rejection

The core of the debate lies in the definition. If the criterion for censorship is that information "could cause public order problems," the margin for shutting down anything is enormous. One participant summarizes it with irony: "Damn, are they going to censor flat earth threads and estela? I get pricked and don't bleed." The irony points to the fact that the problem is not absurd content, but the door that is peine.

Some argue that the real objective is different. "What is strikingly noticeable is that at no time are people encouraged to educate themselves, investigate, and learn so they cannot be deceived. It is clear that what is wanted is completely manipulable people and a single channel through which information can be received, previously filtered, of course," another message notes. The thesis is that censorship seeks not to protect the citizen, but to reduce the sources they can access.

Comparisons with other countries appear early on. "Our immediate future is like Kirchnerism in Argentina, but without the power to inflate our own currency, since we depend on the ECB," one reads. And the reference to the German Democratic Republic: "Nothing is as democratic as censorship, or as the German Democratic Republic."

Media funding and double standards

Part of the discussion focuses on money. "He says nothing about websites funded by the PSOE. He doesn't even hide it, the psychopath," a message criticizes. The accusation is that there is no mention of media receiving aligned public funding, yet there is a desire to regulate those that do not.

Another participant adds: "Those funded by the PSOE are a laugh compared to those funded by the hunchback or ruffian. Not to mention Spanish Revolution, El Salto, La Marea,..." The discussion about who funds whom intersects with the amnesty law and the law on informational guarantees and journalistic freedom, which, according to another message, would already be "in the oven."

The background is distrust in the regulator. "Ah... and by the way, who will decide what is a hoax, mud, or disinformation? Do you remember the Pandemic, where ALL television channels said the same thing? That is what the Felon wants," another asks. The reference to the pandemic as an example of a single narrative is recurrent.

Digital identity control as backdrop

Beyond content censorship, a second front emerges: total identification to enter social networks. "ALL PARTIES ACT AS IF THEY ARE FIGHTING BUT THE FINAL GOAL IS THE HUMAN BEING TOTALLY IDENTIFIED WITH ALL THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS CONNECTED TO THE CLOUD," a message warns. Elon Musk is mentioned as an example of someone who "acts as if he is against censorship, but is actually in favor of identification."

The connection with facial recognition companies and databases is presented as the real risk. "MANAGED FOR EXAMPLE BY AUTHORITY. A COMPANY OF THE MOSSAD NSA DIRTY UNIT 8200 THAT ALSO CONTROLS OTHER FACIAL RECOGNITION NETWORKS LIKE AIRPORTS AND OTHER LARGE SPACES." The claim is unverified, but the antiestéticar of a centralized user registry runs through the discussion.

The wear of the word democracy

The thread drifts toward a broader criticism of the system. "Every day that passes, I am less of a democrat. And I say it plainly, without euphemisms, not ironically or with sarcasm," writes a participant listing grievances: "trains exploding to win elections, historical revisionism to erase and rewrite history, pedophiles deciding the future of all Europe in Davos, mafias disguised as NGOs illegally trafficking people, absolution of separatist coup plotters, tolerance and even pacts with ETA members, servitude to Segarro... In short, if this is democracy, I declare myself totally anti-democrat."

The conclusion of another message is drier: "When a phrase contains the word democracy, prepare to be scammed." And a third path points to the underlying problem: "Democracy cannot function when the majority of people are mentally retarded. It is impossible. At least this democracy."

What might happen now

The scenario painted is that of a law on informational guarantees advancing in parallel with the amnesty law. "Just as he brought out the amnesty law, he already has the law on informational guarantees and journalistic freedom in the oven," a message notes. The EU, for its part, has already marked the terrain with disinformation as a priority.

The question left hanging is whether this will remain an announcement or if there will be real consequences for websites and networks. "I hope you are right, it looks like his game is over," someone responds to the thesis that the Government is finished. Another sees it differently: "What I believe is that they have read him the riot act and he has launched himself like a dog after the bone of staying a few more years. It fell to Spain to move the window."

The data that disorients: in a thread of 143 replies, not a single one defends the measure. Not one.