Censorship Regime Operating Without Ministry of Truth

A working paper uncovered by Apollo News reveals how regional media authorities are developing criteria to classify journalistic content into categories of “valuable” and “harmful” material. Under the proposed framework, outlets deemed to contribute to “diversity of opinion” in an acceptable manner would receive preferential treatment in platform algorithms, while those labeled as “disinforming,” “polarizing,” or merely “attention-seeking” would be downranked or hidden from users.

The scheme represents an expansion of powers granted to Germany’s state media regulators in November 2020, when they were given jurisdiction over online journalism. Patrik Baab, a former reporter for public broadcaster NDR known for investigative work on the Olof Palme and Uwe Barschel cases, has described the emerging system as one where the internet window to the world is being cleaned by power itself.

Censorship Without a Ministry of Truth

The regulatory framework operates through the Digital Services Act at EU level and corresponding national legislation that compels platform operators to police content themselves. Rather than relying on a formal government censorship apparatus, authorities use vague categories like hate speech, incitement, and disinformation to justify content removal or suppression through shadowbanning techniques that leave material technically online but invisible to most users.

Germany’s regional media authorities, originally established in the 1980s to license private broadcasting, now command budgets exceeding 160 million euros annually and employ over one thousand staff. Despite claims of independence from the state, these bodies are headed by career bureaucrats with political backgrounds. In Rhineland-Palatinate, Marc Jan Eumann previously served as state secretary for the SPD in North Rhine-Westphalia, while Bavaria’s regulator is led by Thorsten Schmiege, who rose through the economics ministry and state chancellery in Munich.

Enforcing Official Truth

The Interstate Media Treaty now requires all journalistic outlets not affiliated with self-regulation bodies like the German Press Council to comply with “recognized journalistic principles.” The legislation demands that news be verified for “content, origin, and truth,” a formulation that assumes political questions have definitive truths that can be officially determined.

Enforcement actions have targeted independent journalists including Alexander Wallasch, for whom regulators established a dedicated review group, and the Multipolar portal, which faced complaints in August 2024 over two interviews. Authorities claimed the interviews failed to sufficiently challenge guests or provide proper context, effectively asserting state prerogative to determine what constitutes acceptable journalism.

Brussels-Backed Content Control Since 2018

The current push builds on a European Commission initiative launched in 2018 that pressured platforms to sign a Code of Practice on Disinformation and report regularly on efforts to suppress dissenting positions. Germany pioneered these censorship mechanisms, beginning with then-Justice Minister Heiko Maas of the SPD and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation launching anti-hate working groups, followed by advertising boycott campaigns in late 2016 and the 2017 Network Enforcement Act that became the template for EU-level regulation.

The working paper acknowledges that so-called public value content classifications would complement existing curation practices, using Orwellian language to describe what amounts to systematic filtering of information. The goal extends beyond removing illegal content to actively shaping what citizens encounter online through mandatory quotas favoring state-approved sources.

Manufacturing Consent in the Digital Age

The censorship infrastructure operates alongside expanded government propaganda capabilities, domestication of legacy media through budget constraints while ministerial communications departments expand, and a climate of fear around unapproved speech. Regional media authorities receive funding through mandatory fees of 35 cents per household monthly, ensuring financial independence from democratic accountability while maintaining close ties to political parties.

The new phase of information control targets not just fringe voices but mainstream alternative media that attracts substantial audiences by covering topics or perspectives absent from establishment outlets. By determining what qualifies as journalism worthy of algorithmic promotion versus suppression, German authorities aim to reassert control over public discourse that slipped away with the rise of independent digital media.

As the federal states work to incorporate these provisions into a new Digital Media Interstate Treaty, the framework threatens to formalize practices that major platforms already employ through shadowbanning and demotion of disfavored content. The difference would be explicit state direction of what constitutes valuable journalism deserving of visibility versus material to be buried in search results and recommendations.

With information from Junge Freiheit