How A Soviet-Era Party Game Became The Blueprint For Modern Censorship In The EU And UK

The claim I will defend is unusual, but it is not fanciful. A hidden-role party game designed by a Soviet student in the 1980s provides a remarkably accurate model of how modern democratic states now govern information. The game is Werewolf, originally called Mafia, invented by Dimitry Davidoff at Moscow State University. It was designed as a teaching tool, a psychological experiment, and a way to expose how group decision-making works under conditions of uncertainty when one faction possesses hidden coordination. The irony is severe. A game meant to reveal how manipulation works has become a roadmap for those who claim to be preventing it.

Davidoff’s environment matters. He lived in the Soviet Union, a society structured around information asymmetry. The state controlled official truth. Citizens navigated life through rumor, inference, and trust networks. Davidoff did not invent propaganda, but he did formalize its mechanics. He built what philosophers might call a toy system. It strips reality down to its essentials so that the underlying structure becomes visible.

The structure is simple. A small group of players, the werewolves, know who each other are. The rest, the villagers, do not. The werewolves act secretly at night, eliminating villagers. During the day, the group debates and votes on whom to eliminate. The villagers rely on speech, persuasion, and inference. The werewolves rely on coordination and hidden knowledge. Davidoff states the principle explicitly. The game is a struggle between an informed minority and an uninformed majority. The only advantage the werewolves have is that they know each other.

This advantage is usually sufficient. The werewolves do not need to be smarter. They do not need to be morally persuasive. They only need to shape perception long enough to survive each round. Davidoff emphasizes that persuasion matters more than knowledge itself. The trick of the game is to persuade others to accept your knowledge. Everything else is artificial. The lesson is not that truth disappears. The lesson is that truth does not win on its own.

Davidoff drew heavily from Lev Vygotsky, whose work on cognition emphasized the social formation of knowledge. Vygotsky was deeply influenced by Marxist philosophy, particularly historical materialism and dialectical thinking. Knowledge, on this view, is not merely discovered. It is mediated through social structures. Davidoff applied that insight experimentally. He wanted to know how accusations form, how coalitions stabilize, and how decisions are reached when certainty is unavailable and coordination is asymmetric.

The game spread rapidly. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Werewolf had become common across European universities. It crossed borders easily because it required no equipment, only people and time. It crossed the Atlantic soon after. It appeared at elite tech gatherings such as Game Developers Conference, ETech, Foo Camps, and South By Southwest. Founders of major platforms played it. Security services adopted it formally. In the late 1990s, the Kaliningrad Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs developed training manuals using Mafia to improve psychodiagnostics and body language reading.

This matters because games teach habits of thought. They are not neutral. Werewolf teaches a particular lesson repeatedly. Open deliberation collapses when shared facts are contested. A coordinated minority can dominate a majority if it controls the informational terrain. The side that defines what counts as legitimate knowledge usually wins.

Now consider modern information regulation. The European Union’s Digital Services Act is framed as a response to systemic risks, including disinformation and threats to civic life. It does not merely prohibit illegal content. It imposes obligations on platforms to mitigate societal harms. To accomplish this, it designates trusted flaggers. These entities receive priority treatment. Their judgments carry procedural weight. Platforms face penalties if they fail to act.

This creates a familiar structure. A small, coordinated class of regulators, NGOs, and enforcement-linked bodies gains privileged access to information control. The general public remains formally free to speak, but practically uncertain about what is permitted. Enforcement happens invisibly through algorithmic suppression, shadow-banning, and removal decisions that occur offstage. Public labeling and deplatforming occur during moments of accusation. Platform administrators and government coordinators act as moderators who know the full state of play.

The European side of this story is even clearer. The Digital Services Act did not emerge from an abstract bureaucratic process but from a small, tightly connected group operating inside the European Commission, particularly within DG CONNECT and the cabinets surrounding competition and digital policy. Two figures are especially central. Lucilla Sioli, Director for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Industry at DG CONNECT, was educated at the University of Rome La Sapienza in the 1990s, a period when Werewolf had already spread widely through European universities as a standard social and analytical game. Renate Nikolay, Deputy Head of Cabinet to Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, studied at the University of Vienna in the same decade, another node where the game was common and culturally salient. Both were exposed to Werewolf in precisely the formative years when habits of reasoning about coordination, information asymmetry, and collective decision-making are acquired.

Their later roles placed them in structurally decisive positions. Sioli’s directorate framed online speech as a matter of systemic risk, translating abstract concerns about information disorder into technical compliance obligations for platforms. Nikolay’s cabinet role aligned that framing with competition policy and enforcement authority at the highest level of the Commission. Together, and with others operating in the same institutional orbit, they locked the logic of the Act into place. This convergence is not coincidence. It reflects a shared intellectual repertoire learned earlier, rehearsed socially, and later applied administratively. What began as a pedagogical game demonstrating how an informed minority can dominate an uninformed majority became, decades later, a regulatory architecture that formalized that very advantage.

The parallel with Werewolf is not rhetorical. It is structural. The informed minority becomes trusted flaggers, fact-checkers, and regulators. The uninformed majority becomes the general public, relying on open discourse. The night phase becomes invisible enforcement. The day phase becomes public misinformation labeling. The moderator becomes the platform-state complex.

The Digital Services Act ensures that certain entities gain priority access to define harm and truth. Critics have noted that this bypasses traditional due process and accountability. Faced with administrative risk, platforms err on the side of over-removal. The result is collateral censorship and a chilling effect on speech. Disagreement with elite consensus becomes a compliance problem.

The United Kingdom followed a parallel path. The Online Safety Act focuses formally on illegal content and harms to children, but its development history reveals persistent pressure to regulate legal but harmful speech. That pressure did not emerge from nowhere. Several of the most consequential women positioned around the Act were educated in the same institutional environment and at the same moment, and all were exposed to Werewolf during their university years in the 1990s. Sarah Healey, Permanent Secretary at DCMS, was at Oxford. Melanie Dawes, now CEO of Ofcom, was at Oxford. Susie Hargreaves, CEO of the Internet Watch Foundation, was also at Oxford. Each occupied a node linking government, regulator, and enforcement-adjacent stakeholders responsible for implementing and operationalizing the Act. Damian Collins at Nottingham belongs to the same generational cohort, but the Oxford cluster is the salient fact. This convergence is not coincidence, and it does not require conspiratorial intent. It reflects a shared intellectual formation, rehearsed repeatedly in the same hidden-role game, that treated open discourse as unstable and managerial oversight as necessary.

Ideas have biographies. The people who drafted these regimes did not invent the belief that open discourse is fragile. They rehearsed it. They played it. They learned, repeatedly, that an uninformed majority cannot reliably converge on truth without guidance. The game taught them that someone must manage the informational environment.

Here, the central irony emerges. Davidoff’s lesson was diagnostic, not prescriptive. He showed how manipulation works. Modern regulators adopted the structure and claimed it as a cure. They say they are protecting democracy from manipulation. But the method they choose is to monopolize the category of legitimate information.

This move rests on a pessimistic view of the public. Half the population has an IQ under 100. Many policymakers, especially in Europe, assume citizens are cognitively vulnerable to narrative capture, a belief reinforced by an educational system in which less than half of Europeans are even permitted to apply to university, not as an accident of capacity but as a deliberate sorting mechanism that separates those deemed fit to manage knowledge from those expected merely to receive it. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule described conspiracy belief as crippled epistemology and suggested cognitive infiltration as a remedy. The assumption is managerial. The public cannot be trusted to reason without supervision.

But democracies differ from authoritarian systems in one crucial respect. There is no naturally informed minority. Truth is contested in the open. Information competes. Authority emerges through persuasion, not enforcement. To recreate the Werewolf advantage in a democracy, elites must manufacture it. They must control information flow. They must define harm. They must enforce shared facts.

That is what modern censorship regimes attempt. They transform disagreement into regulatory risk. They replace persuasion with compliance. They substitute invisible enforcement for public debate. The game mechanics remain the same. Only the rhetoric changes.

Davidoff built a model to warn us. The side that gets to define the informational terrain wins. That insight is morally neutral. It can be used to defend openness or to rationalize control. The tragedy is that those who claim to oppose manipulation have institutionalized it.

Werewolf ends when the villagers realize too late what structure they were playing inside. Modern societies may not get that moment of revelation. The system does not announce itself as a game. It announces itself as safety.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: White House Touts Sweeping New Trade And Energy Deal