I hate it when people define dirty words like censorship to only mean censoring "good" things, and censoring bad things is not "censorship" but some other more positive euphamism.
Every single regime that has ever censored anything did it in their mind for the "good" of the people to protect them from negative influences.
Many countries do not elect leaders but parlamentarian representants with their own freedom to elect whoever they like. While I do not appreciate the way how the commission is assembled, it is just two election representations away from the people.
The commission has a regular change of both the people in it and the election body (aka the governments). I am not to strong on the definition of dictatorship but typically you have long living single person with malicious intent on top of it. Not the case here.
And on topic of trade union: we are now 20 or 30 years beyond that point depending which treaty you take. When you integrate trade, you agree on rules. When you establish rules, you need a government body. When you govern the four freedoms, how much is left you do not govern. The deeper you integrate trade, the more it becomes a single construct/country/union.
Everything else is just not logically (take international trade agreement eg. US/EU agreements... These are pseudo laws which have such a worse standing everywhere... That is so much worse)
the problem is, who gets to decide what is disinformation?
yes, there is a lot of fake news out there, and i'd rather see it go away, but i fear that the barrier to decide if something is disinformation is to low. if someone claims that something is disinformation, it is not enough to show that it contradicts some other information, but once such a conflict exist we have to go the next step and show actual evidence that one is right and the other is wrong. and the source spreading the disinformation has to be given the chance to present their evidence as well. if they can't then they may be denounced accordingly, but their spread should then only be limited, and not outright blocked so that there is still a chance to critically evaluate it.
* there must not be a single entity that is the arbiter of truth, but we need multiple independent institutions that evaluate sensitive topics and give their recommendations.
content providers may then follow any one of these institutions at their choice. (most practical would be to have regional institutions to give diversity, but content providers may follow any of them. if the french one says something is ok, and the german one says it's not, then the content may still be unrestricted even in germany)
* content must not be completely blocked but should come with a warning or be hidden. like on hackernews.
i can, if i want to, access all the dead content. it's just an extra step, and the majority won't bother with it, but the ones curious can check, and if there is something wrongly hidden they can share that.
The commission is subject to the courts like any other government body. The European courts have been quite in point in defending consumers and common people. IMHO no drama here.
So you oppose freedom of speech, you oppose property rights, you oppose the right to protect children. Because you oppose basic rules in society, I support violence to fight you
I would welcome measures that go a lot further than this.