How the EU is Controlling the Ceuta Story

Shortly after migrants flooded the Spanish territory of Ceuta, notices popped up around Instagram and Facebook.¹ These notices are not organic; they were coordinated by the European Commission along with two government-funded NGOs they designated as “reliable and trustworthy” fact-checkers.²

The European Commission’s rapid response has two components. The first warns presumed migrants about illegal traffickers. The second insists that “Monitoring must increase, cooperation with fact-checkers to be strengthened.”

The EU “Code of Conduct on Disinformation” establishes strict information control protocols. This code explicitly threatens Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube, and Google Search with hundred million dollar fines if they do not obey these directives. The Commission already issued a €120M fine to X for refusing to censor political content.

The European Commission has activated this protocol for Ceuta. “TikTok and Meta have activated crisis protocols and have now put in place an ad-hoc escalation and cooperation mechanism with fact-checkers,” a European Commission Vice-President claimed on X.

Who decides what is disinformation? The European Commission designated two transnational organizations as their arbiters for Ceuta: the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Neither NGO is independent or objective; both are political advocacy groups overwhelmingly funded by governments.

According to its charter, the IOM’s purpose is “to make arrangements for the organized transfer of migrants” and “to provide, at the request of and in agreement with the States concerned, migration services.” IOM received over $3B from governments in 2024.

In 2024, IOM made its official policy to “effectively mainstream gender equality” and “deliver gender-responsive approaches that are inclusive of persons of all genders.” Another IOM report “aims to support the development of inclusive measures for migrants with diverse SOGIESC [sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics] to benefit from protection programming across their migration journey.” Its advocacy is a direct conflict of interest with fact-checking on behalf of the European Commission and Meta.

Likewise, OSCE is an advocacy organization funded by national governments, not an independent or objective evaluator.⁵ In their “ACTION PLAN FOR THE PROMOTION OF GENDER EQUALITY,” they wrote, “Stressing the need for the OSCE to develop further and strengthen a continuous and sustainable gender-mainstreaming process, to promote a gender-sensitive and professional working environment and management culture, and efforts towards gender balance in staffing in particular on a professional level.” OSCE received over €70M from governments in 2024.

While the European Commission has no jurisdiction over non-EU States, Effort has corroborated that these notices appear in the United States, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. This implies that these countries are all affected by the European Commission's rapid reponse protocol — including its political censorship.