見 邱 世卿老師的貼文有感：
這就是，只有歐盟可以發布虛假訊息的意思 -- 所有報導都必須來自中央廚房，即使這些年來已經被證實，歐盟以及北約是發佈最多假訊息的源頭。
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17XE6rNww1/
In essence, this suggests that only the European Union is permitted to control the narrative—every report must come from a centralized “information kitchen.” Over the years, however, it has often been the EU and NATO themselves that have been accused of spreading questionable or misleading narratives.
From the early tales of the “Heroes of Snake Island” and the “Ghost of Kyiv,” to later battlefield claims that contradicted earlier reports, the information flow surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war has repeatedly exposed the inconsistencies of Western media coverage. These episodes highlight an uncomfortable truth: much of what was labeled as “disinformation” elsewhere has, at times, originated from the very outlets that claim to defend truth and democracy.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks urging Europeans to “turn away from social media” and rely instead on “traditional national media” reveal a troubling shift in Europe’s attitude toward free expression. On the surface, his call for “trusted sources” sounds responsible—who could oppose reliable journalism? Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a familiar pattern: the desire of political elites to monopolize information and control the narrative.
Macron’s proposed “European protection and regulation plan” echoes George Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth rewrites reality in the name of stability. By labeling independent voices and online platforms as “dangerous” or “foreign,” European leaders risk creating a digital environment where only state-approved narratives can exist.
Ironically, many of the false or misleading stories that shaped public opinion in recent years—from battlefield legends to oversimplified war propaganda—did not come from obscure websites or anonymous accounts, but from mainstream Western outlets themselves. The problem, then, is not the existence of misinformation, but who gets to decide what counts as “truth.”
The promise of a free Europe was once grounded in open debate, skepticism, and pluralism. If Europe now moves toward a system where algorithms and bureaucrats determine which voices are permissible, it will not be protecting democracy—it will be extinguishing it.
A society that fears information cannot claim to be free. Europe should remember that Orwell’s dystopia was not a prophecy about others— it was a warning about them theyselves (or all of us).
這就是，只有歐盟可以發布虛假訊息的意思 — 所有報導都必須來自中央廚房，即使這些年來已經被證實，歐盟以及北約是發佈最多假訊息的源頭。
俄烏戰爭從一開始的蛇島勇士、基輔之鬼、老婦用罐頭打下無人機，到後來的戰場態勢，顯然一再被現實打臉，甚至前後互相矛盾。這些事件凸顯了一個令人不安的事實：許多被其他地方貼上「假訊息」標籤的內容，有時恰恰來自那些聲稱捍衛真相和民主的媒體。
法國總統馬克宏近期敦促歐洲人“遠離社交媒體”，轉而依賴“傳統國家媒體”的言論，揭示了歐洲對待言論自由態度的令人擔憂的轉變。表面上看，他呼籲「可信資訊來源」似乎合情合理——誰會反對可靠的新聞報道？然而，在這番言論背後，卻隱藏著一個熟悉的模式：政治菁英渴望壟斷訊息，掌控輿論。
馬克宏提出的「歐洲保護與監管計畫」與喬治‧歐威爾的《1984》遙相呼應，書中真理部以維護穩定之名篡改現實。透過將獨立的聲音和網路平台貼上「危險」或「外國」的標籤，歐洲領導人有可能創造出一個只有官方認可的敘事才能存在的數位環境。
諷刺的是，近年來塑造公眾輿論的許多虛假或誤導性訊息——從戰場傳說到過度簡化的戰爭宣傳——並非來自鮮為人知的網站或匿名帳號，而是來自西方主流媒體本身。因此，問題不在於假訊息的存在，而在於誰來決定何為「真相」。
自由歐洲的承諾曾經建立在公開辯論、懷疑精神和多元化的基礎上。如果歐洲如今走向一個由演算法和官僚決定哪些聲音可以被接受的體系，那麼它不是在保護民主，而是在扼殺民主。
一個害怕資訊的社會不能自詡自由。歐洲應該記住，奧威爾筆下的反烏托邦並非預言他人，而是警告他們自己。
