EU Committee Rules Could ‘Destroy The Internet As We Know It’

by | Jun 20, 2018 | Conspiracy Fact and Theory, Headline News | 13 comments

Do you LOVE America?


    A European Union committee has just approved rules that could “destroy the internet as we know it.” The two new and controversial rules change the dynamics of the internet and introduce wide-ranging new changes to the way the web works.

    For starters, the rules, known as Article 11 and Article 13 could be used to “ban memes.” Article 13 has been criticized by campaigners who claim that it could force internet companies to ban all memes. It requires that all websites check posts against a database of copyrighted work, and remove those that are flagged. The reason many believe this could lead to a meme ban is that memes often use images taken from films or TV shows and could be removed by websites under article 13.  It’s just a convenient and propagandized way of making censorship sound better, though.

    According to The Independent, an open letter published last week was signed by more than 70 experts, including web creator Tim Berners-Lee, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and internet pioneer Vint Cerf.”By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” that letter read.

    But it gets even worse. As if that isn’t tyrannical and authoritarian enough, the EU made sure to add a tax with the creation of Article 11 – this is just more evidence that authoritarians will do anything it takes to steal more money, so here’s a tax on free speech. Article 11 introduces a “link tax”, requiring that internet companies get permission from publishers to use a snippet of their work. On websites like Google and Twitter, for instance, a small part of the article is usually shown before someone clicks into it entirely but under the new rule, those technology companies would have to get permission and perhaps even pay to use that excerpt. A letter signed by 169 academics argued that the new rule “would likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy.”

    Though the new rules have been approved by the EU’s JURI commission, they will not go into effect until they are passed by the European Parliament.  But anyone with even a shred of dignity and a desire for liberty and free speech should reject these rules.  They amount to nothing more than hardened censorship and taxation of free speech. This is disturbing and equivalent to the book burning of Nazi Germany.


    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles


      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.


      1. As school children, you learned to cite your sources, as in a literary work, and to come up with your own, fictional creatures. You can’t think of your own frog cartoon? I bet 5% of the text on this page has to do with the actual article. Why not ad a small, extra paragraph, at the bottom, for your references.

        Also, people in s-hole countries, particularly during wartime, had to build their own infrastructure, consisting of satellite dishes on roofs, faxes through backchannels, etc. Why is the EU required, for a centralized internet. Because, people with expertise, in this dept, are uninspired and lazy.

        Information is still exchanged, under formal review, and even under onerous controls.

      2. It is important to take action when someone –practically anyone– tries to do to us something we don’t permit. And this needs to be done effectively immediately, upon the first instance of its occurrence. Simply stating that it’s something you don’t like is often enough to put a stop to it. You can practice what to say in these circumstances, and over time you’ll develop effective ways of accomplishing this. Exceptions exist, and you need to figure out what these exceptions are because there are many of them. Experience will assist you in this. After you’ve been doing this for several years you’ll notice a big improvement, both in your ability to achieve your desires, and in a reduction of abuses committed against you by others. There are cases when action needs to be avoided, especially where you are uncertain of outcomes, and sometimes these can only be determined over time. What often happens is that tolerance sets in, whether rightly or wrongly, and this is a function of your own subjective perception. At times when tolerance should not set in, over time it becomes clear that an abuse must cease, so during your observation of the potential wrong doing you need to prepare yourself so that ultimately you will be able very decisively to cause the abuse to cease permanently, without the possibility of interference or delay. You can figure out what this means. Generally it should be expected to work best if you don’t injure or kill the offender. This is not news. From a biological point to view it’s just effective survival under your own control not someone else’s.

      3. The EU has got to GO!

        The EU has got to GO!

        The EU has got to GO!


      4. The Internet is about sharing of information. That is its point. Take that away, and it is a supermarket (which is what they want). Buy stuff, just don’t think or exchange ideas.

        These actions will just re-invigorate the paper publishing industry (and chop down a few zillion trees in the process) as people go back to newspapers and magazines to share ideas. I care not either way since I win on both sides of that trade, but the Internet offers WAY more opportunities for innovation.

      5. Who would be interested in reading the Internet censored of varied opinions from non official sources? Duh, everybody who believes in free speech that’s who! This is nothing more than the attempt to block inconvenient and damaging truths.

      6. Although I don’t condone book burning, and Nazi Germany did burn some rather harmless classics, the bonfire started in response to vile child pornography and other forms of pornography infecting the literature at the time. Shades of Grey in the not so evil Nazi.


      7. What could’ve been a wonderful thing has evolved into a trap of unparalleled misuse of technology (short of making nuclear bombs perhaps). We’ve all dived in to this mucky pool and our lives are changed thereby. This site used to be more or less one for exchange of ideas to aid survival should as it is called – SHTFplan. And yet, compared to so many others, it’s still ‘up there’ as being useful. But it too will fall to these two Articles (11 & 13). Simply because it must be paid for to stay online. Not the author’s fault; just the way it is. Article 13 – copyright protection/effective content recognition technologies; Article 11 – a ‘link/snippet’ tax. Money in other words. And anytime money becomes necessary to hear, read or learn of truth; those truths, are imperiled. I for one have this odd hope it just all crashes. The entire friggin’ internet, instant communications, so-called social media. Call me a Luddite; but, I see no other way anymore to right this ship that is getting ready to roll.

      8. Frank Thoughts and Aljamo, both of you hit those right out of the park. The globalists will do anything to cut off the truth and free flow of information. F#$% the EU. They don’t tell me or other Americans wtf to do.

      9. this might work:
        if the EU puts out some crazy rules then Facebook can say screw you and cut off everyone in the EU. Just wait awhile until all the europeans go beserk and demand that the rules from this non elected body be scrapped. why let the EU control things outside the EU ?

      10. Whoever wrote this article is clueless to how the internet actually works. The new neutrality internet law just passed in the USA by Turmp (sic) is more of an economic function than a censorship tool. (companies like netflix were streaming videos in some areas so profusely that the internet became unusable. By charging these companies for bandwidth, the funds would (hypothetically) be used to expand the resources in these areas. The cost now is loaded onto all users instead of the companies that are making the huge profits) However, the exact same technology CAN be used to censor content, which is what all the fuss is about. The EU proposed laws will not affect the USA so don’t sweat it. It only becomes a threat here if our congressmen go along with it. (oh shit!)

      11. Good!!! I don’t recognize it anymore anyway.

        They could have saved it, but comment sections ruined it all.

        The objections are primarily about bickering, taunting, lying, fake news, and threats. Good riddance to that medium. It is the tongue that has ruined the internet, as it has almost everything else it gets involved in. Sowing seeds of distrust, accusations, spreading rumor is something we can all live without. A few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

      12. In thought didn’t the US create ARPA NET? Why should any country outside the US have anything to say about what rules should be applied to it?

      13. The Internet was co-opted as a weaponised control tool. What we are seeing right now is a tug of war between the side who like all the division and unrest the weaponised Internet creates (look at the Arab Spring etc.) and the other factions who think they can just control the world by pumping out there info-crap and propaganda. Both factions are control freaks and elitists but they aren’t sure what to do next.

        The EU is already so damaged by the influx of authoritarian Muslims that it would be pretty easy to clamp down on free speech there. The New Internet will just be full of garbage videos of Muslims praying or having an Eed feast or somesuch nonsense. Politicians will have their channels peddling their boring ideas and PC thought control.

        “Hi! I am Jeremy and as your Prime Minister I thought it would be great to walk you through the concept of a ‘micro-agression’. These small insults greatly hurt our Islamic friends and we must stamp out micro-aggressions whereever they appear. Blah, blah …”

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.