>Lets say the primary force we need to prevent is russian influence campaigns that back and push far right nationalists who will destabilize democracy. Is that a sufficient reason for controls?

No. Because if you solve underlying tensions in society the so called russian propaganda has nothing to take hold on.

Also who and under what rules will decide which propaganda is allowed? is American propaganda fine? Chinese? Japanese? UAE?

Not only this creates dissident, and suppresses voices critical of current government. but also gives extraordinary power on level of soviet union to current government.

You might trust current EU to not abuse it, but it might take a single elections, or single term for un-elected(!) officials in EC for attidute to change.

Just like in US - a lot of powers were granted but suddenly there's a person willing to abuse them.

For that to be even considered in EU we would need a lot more check and balances - especially for European Comission and Council.

Another issue is - is EU a trade union or federation? if former - this is outside of EU's responsiblities and powers. if later - look at point above.

If you really wanted to solve this problem you would go after advertisers and data collection companies, and regulate them.

The answer to lies is generally sunshine, not censorship. There are just too many examples of censorship eventually being misused by those in power. The power to censor Russia right now might appear appealing to those in charge, but they need to remember, pro-Russian factions may be voted into power in the future, and they will use this power to suppress information they don't like. Once the precedent is created, it's too late to cry about censorship when it's your "side" which gets censored. No one will care.

To point: I don't accept the premise that the governments gets to decide which information I should be allowed to consume.

Is it a sufficient reason to build a cage for yourself that only needs a single regime flip to turn against you? Is it a sufficient reason to become what you're trying to avoid? Is destabilizing democracy necessary to stop the democracy from being destabilized? No, no, and no.

>russian influence campaigns

Just FYI, your rhetoric precisely mirrors Russian internal rhetoric used to boil the frog 10-15 years ago. If this doesn't make you pause and think, nothing will. In Russia people who fall for it are called "unteachable". Which makes sense, you don't seem to learn anything from their mistakes even though you have a live example of your future that you will reach with 99% certainty, without any help from your boogeymen, because your politicians mirror each step.

>who will destabilize democracy

Let's just ban those politicians, ban and censor "bad" media and platforms, and surveil all citizens to protect us from those pesky authoritarians!

Is eroding privacy the only way to combat that?

> Is that a sufficient reason for controls?

no.

Rubbish. Fighting fascism by implementing totalitarian tools is a ludicrous idea.

Start with dismantling the means by which the information cancer spreads. No more targeted ads, no more data harvesting. Increase privacy.

Everybody knows about the influence of Russian bots on the net and yet precisely fuck all is being done about it.

Why would Russia be responsible for what corrupt EU officials do?

There is a high chance that corrupt money spreads, which explains 100% of why such laws get in, but I fail to see why Russia should the only or primary actor be here. There is no real benefit for Russia here, but there is a LOT of benefit for those who want to reduce privacy and force transparency onto everyone at all times. Several US companies come to mind and there is cross-state kick back going on here even aside from the USA too.

You know EU has mostly gone after and unpersoned leftoids (and accusing them of working for russia), despite the rightoid wringing of hands?

Look up e. g. Hüseyin Doğru.

to argue that the success of the far right nationalists is solely off the back of Russian disinformation campaigns ignores the material reality experienced by far right party voters

seems like a lot of people either know way to much about the paradox of tolerance and how to wield it against people's best interest; or know nothing about it.