Calling something "hate speech" is quite different from actually calling on platforms to punish stuff for "whatever they don't like". So, your statement, while I agree with it as it stands doesn't really apply to this article.
The article is based on the statement of US officials, which is heavily biased. Let's take an example. They sanction the CEO of "Disinformation index". Their activity consists in publishing reports such as:
* Climate Change Disinformation in Canada - August 2025 https://www.disinformationinde...
* Hate Speech and Bigotry in Canada - August 2025 https://www.disinformationinde...
* State of Disinformation in Germany - June 2025 https://www.disinformationinde...
Here is from the abstract of their report on climate denialism in Canada (first sentence of each of the 3 first paragraphs of the summary)
This report examines how climate denial and delayist narratives circulate in Canada’s digital ecosystems, shaping public opinion, fuelling polarisation, and constraining democratic capacity to respond to environmental challenges. [...] Climate denialism frequently overlaps with broader conspiracy theories. Narratives suggest that climate policy is a tool of global elites, often invoking international organisations or Canadian federal authorities as instruments of control. [...] Importantly, disinformation does not circulate uniformly across Canada. Regional vulnerabilities are shaped by economic, cultural, and political factors.
Tell me how this amounts to "organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose". I will tell you: Trump use as an argument that climate change denialism is a core American viewpoint. Which as an euphemism I will say is extremely exaggerated. Therefore anything that challenges climate denialism is "suppression of American viewpoints".
Since the NGO forwards that to the public debate, it's painted as "concerted action". Because some EU has some rules that say that platforms should have moderation (the exact same rules that were ok with Meta creating a multi million dollar fund and independent moderators and annual reports, few years back, a moderation platform which Meta abolished shortly after Trump was elected in his second term), it's now "coerce American platforms".
I could come in agreement if an organisation, or a country, would use the education system to propagate lies about American history, philosophy, Constitution, in order to cause a moral prejudice to the USA. Because even I can see these are core American viewpoints. Now doing this because an NGO calls out climate denialism, and this hurts Trump's mind (and/or business) is just... pathetic.