The growing trend of censorship in the digital age: the alarming use of online violence as a pretext for repression

The digital landscape has become a battleground in which the borders of free expression are increasingly dissolved, under the pretext of combating online violence.

This trend is reaching a critical point where the justification of "online violence" is being exploited as a convenient pretext to justify draconian measures that are not only used for the suppression of legitimate speech, humour, political satire and AI content, but they also threaten fundamental rights to privacy, free expression and anonymity.

These are not isolated cases

Recently in Mexico, a bill has emerged seeking to criminalize online sharing of memes, GIFs, stickers and videos that "humiliate, ridicule or discredit public officials," and offenders could face up to six years in prison.

The proposal has triggered a broad negative reaction from digital rights defenders, freedom of expression organizations and the general public in Mexico and internationally.

The legislation was formally presented by Morena's deputies in the Mexican Congress and is currently under preliminary review.

Critics argue that the law poses a serious threat to freedom of expression and could be used to suppress political dissent and satire, essential components of democratic discourse.

It is important to note that this type of legislation is not an original idea that happens only in Mexico, much less a measure or idea that corresponds only to a specific political party.

There is a clear interest in the world's legislations to justify censorship under excuses where the targets and victims of these laws are presented as offenders.

Considering a few examples:

The China Cyberspace Administration (CAC) launched an initiative to remove content deemed "harmful," in line with Chinese Communist Party directives. This effort is aimed at critical economic views and the disillusionment of young people.
In the UK, hearings were held to design algorithms that detect harmful content, with calls from Labour Party MPs for censorship of political memes.
Texas House Bill 366, described as combating disinformation against AI content, could criminalize the sharing of altered political content without an authorized government "disclaimer."
In Germany, one man faced a police raid for publishing political memes, with the prosecutor of his case claiming that his efforts were a kind of noble crusade against digital dissent.

Not to mention hundreds of similar arrests that have been happening all over the planet under the same line.

Legislation is more worrying than the online “violence.”

Based on the insignificance that a simple comment, article or childish memes may have: Is consideration given to the consequences of these laws?

Only for comments and jokes in the network, the law officials, thanks to these "legislations," make arrests, kidnappings and raids.

They destroy homes, take personal things, invade privacy, not to mention all the stress and cost of "legitimate" court proceedings.

These laws subtly inhumanize as they teach to criminalize innocent and normal behavior, such as publishing an opinion or a joke. In the worst cases, the personal data of the "accused" is leaked, publicly destroying them.

To top it all off, the victims are actually the "culprits," for writing or sharing an image that annoyed the weak "legitimate power" of some official or harmed the interests of digital corporations.

This shows us that these laws create an environment of fear and a supposedly "legal" framework for harassing harmless people. Causing people to self-censor for fear that what little they have left will be destroyed.

A long-standing pattern of legislation and compliance

The push for greater censorship is not a new phenomenon. It has been a gradual process involving the implementation of legal and regulatory frameworks that aim to eliminate what authorities and platform regulators arbitrarily mark as "harmful content."

These measures have been progressively expanded to target everything, including political memes, satire and AI-generated content. Both governments and private platforms have developed algorithms and monitoring systems that examine online activities with increasing sophistication.

Particularly worrying is the focus on political memes used as tools of dissent, related with the historical practice of satire and political criticism, which makes clear to us the profound reach of these laws.

Historically, political satire has served as a vital mechanism for highlighting the responsibilities of those in power; however, under these new censorship regimes, such expressions are increasingly classified as "disinformation" or "harmful content," thus restricting the space for political discourse and dissent.

They are also focusing on the content generated by AI, which is being examined and censored on the pretext that it could incite violence or spread misinformation, regardless of its intent or context.

The use of "online violence" as an excuse for repression

The pretext of online violence is widely used to justify censorship measures that would otherwise, they would be seen as an infringement on freedom of expression.

What constitutes online "violence" is, as in all laws, vague and subjective, ranging from offensive jokes and memes to satirical content and AI-generated humorous images.

Authorities and platform moderators are justify that the removal or deletion of such content is a means to protect users from harm, but all this results in the silencing of legitimate expression and which could in no way be considered violent.

This approach effectively criminalizes any form of expression from articles, to images of humor and satire, essential pillars of free social discourse, showing them as potential threats.

The broad and ambiguous criteria used to classify content as violent or harmful can be applied arbitrarily or selectively to dissident voices, marginalized communities or political opponents.

The Growing Role of Cybervigilance and Digital Identity

But, as if that weren't enough, all this is only part of it, since one of the most subtle consequences of these censorship laws is the need for increased cybervigilance, a broad monitoring regime that involves examining individual conversations, online networks and social interactions to identify "criminals."

In many cases, this leads to the imposition of a digital identity, where users are tracked and tagged based on their online activity, which makes it essential to identify the authors of particular content.

This shift towards digital surveillance erodes personal privacy on an unprecedented scale. To enforce content moderation, authorities and platform operators must review large amounts of personal communications, social networks and private messages.

This widespread surveillance not only cools free expression, but also risks abuse and misuse of personal data, as the line between law enforcement, corporate interests and security has been completely blurred.

A trend of decades of repression and control

The current wave of censorship is best understood as part of a broader, longer-term trend towards greater control of digital spaces.

While the narrative around it emphasizes security and the fight against disinformation, the reality is that these measures serve to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

Over the years, legal measures aimed at controlling alleged "harmful content" are becoming increasingly broad, leaving room for arbitrary interpretation and the invasion of privacy.

In many jurisdictions, laws are developed with vague language that allows authorities to remove content or penalize people based on subjective assessments.

Political opponents, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens risk being silenced simply for expressing unpopular or inconvenient opinions.

The focus of AI content and memes - creations that are central to online culture and political activism - further exemplifies how these measures threaten freedom.

Implications for society and free expression

The consequences of these censorship practices go beyond the mere removal of content. They foster an environment of self-censorship, a dystopian and oppressive situation, where individuals fear repercussions even for sharing insignificant jokes, memes or opinions.

The erosion of privacy through widespread surveillance discourages open dialogue and encourages conformity. Meanwhile, the imposition of digital identities and the tracking of online networks facilitate authoritarian control, where dissent can be easily identified, isolated and suppressed.

Moreover, the suppression of political satire and humor - forms of expression historically vital to democratic discourse - destroys the meaning of society by turning it into a system.

When the authorities prioritize controlling narratives rather than encouraging free exchange of ideas, the democracy and security they claim to defend is being destroyed.