Danby Choi: Individets Suverenitetsindeks (ISI) analysis

Danby Choi is Norway’s most prominent anti-woke media voice — a self-described “ytringsfrihetsfundamentalist” (free speech fundamentalist) whose publicly stated positions cluster overwhelmingly around speech, culture, and individual expression rather than economics or technical policy. His ISI profile reveals a figure with deep, well-documented libertarian convictions on speech and identity but significant gaps across economic, digital, and institutional dimensions. This asymmetry is itself a key finding: Choi operates primarily as a cultural libertarian, not a comprehensive policy thinker. The analysis below maps his positions across all six ISI dimensions and 26 subdimensions based on his own writings, interviews, editorials, books, and public statements from 2021–2026.

Who Danby Choi is: the dancing, gay, immigrant-background editor

Danby Choi (born May 11, 1993, Oslo) is a Korean-Norwegian journalist, entrepreneur, and editor-in-chief of Subjekt (subjekt.no). His parents emigrated from South Korea as labor immigrants — his father a former speed skater for the South Korean national team, his mother later working for the Norwegian-Korean Chamber of Commerce. He grew up working-class in Oppsal (Oslo) and later Østerås (Bærum), serving as his family’s translator and bureaucratic intermediary from childhood.

Before journalism, Choi was a competitive streetdancer — Norwegian champion in 2009 at age 16, performing alongside Lady Gaga and warming up for Ne-Yo. He holds a bachelor’s in journalism from OsloMet (2016) and freelanced for Aftenposten, Dagbladet, NRK P3, and Natt & Dag before founding Subjekt as a print magazine in 2013 and relaunching it as an online newspaper in 2017. He is openly gay, describes himself as a “double minority,” and has no known party membership, though he self-identifies as a “liberal” and “liberalist at heart.”

Subjekt, which Choi solely owns and edits, carries the tagline “Etikk og estetikk” (Ethics and Aesthetics) and describes its values as “ytringsfrihet, meningsmangfold, toleranse og åpenhet” (free speech, diversity of opinion, tolerance, and openness). It reported over 600,000 monthly visits and was named Norway’s fastest-growing newspaper by MBL in 2022 and 2023. Funding comes from subscriptions, advertising, and grants from Fritt Ord, Kulturrådet, and Medietilsynet (the latter providing ~3.5 million NOK in press support by 2023–24). He authored two books: Kanseller meg hvis du kan (Cancel Me If You Can, 2023) and Du skal tro at du er noe (You Shall Believe You Are Something, 2025).

Choi is among Norway’s most polarizing public figures. Supporters (Minerva’s Nils August Andresen, commentator Kjetil Rolness) call him a vital liberal voice against media conformism. Critics (Filter Nyheter’s Harald Klungtveit, Manifest’s Magnus Marsdal) label Subjekt a “radical right-wing platform” and “Norwegian megaphone for American fascist TV.” Choi’s retort: “Magnus Marsdal went looking for Norwegian right-wing extremism and came home with a dancing, gay, immigrant-background, entrepreneurial editor.”

Dimension 1: Bodily autonomy — strong on COVID, silent on most else

COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates

Choi’s pandemic-era positions are well-documented and consistently critical of state overreach. He explicitly described Norway’s COVID measures as “illiberale tiltak og grep fra staten” (illiberal measures and actions from the state) and positioned Subjekt as one of few media outlets willing to scrutinize pandemic governance. His core argument: mainstream Norwegian media failed the Vær Varsom-plakaten (press ethics code) by deferring to government policy without adequate critical questioning.

On vaccine mandates, Subjekt published a notable January 2022 debate piece titled “Det er uetisk å presse mennesker til å ta en vaksine de selv ikke ønsker” (It is unethical to pressure people into taking a vaccine they themselves don’t want), authored by health professionals including Birger Sørensen. When Subjekt published a controversial article linking COVID vaccines to cancer risk, Choi defended it: “Norwegian media has been dominated by studies about how vaccines are important and safe. It is of course equally important to cover figures that show something different.” He added pointedly: “Norske medier er heldigvis ikke underlagt FHI” (Norwegian media is fortunately not subordinate to FHI).

On koronapass (vaccine passports), Choi was explicitly and strongly opposed, calling them a violation of “grunnleggende menneskerettigheter… mobiliseringsfrihet, ytringsfrihet og informasjonsfrihet” (fundamental human rights — freedom of movement, speech, and information). Even critic Gunnar Tjomlid conceded: “I completely agree with his argumentation around koronapass.”

He invoked historical precedent — the swine flu vaccine and lobotomy — to argue: “If there’s one thing we shouldn’t be too certain about, it’s that what we believe now is right, universal, and absolute.”

Drug policy, lifestyle regulation, and end-of-life

No publicly stated positions found on drug legalization/decriminalization, Vinmonopolet, alcohol policy, tobacco regulation, sugar taxes, or euthanasia. His liberalist self-identification suggests probable sympathy toward less paternalistic regulation, but this remains inference, not documented position.

Immigration and freedom of movement

Choi is personally pro-immigration — his entire public identity is built on his immigrant-background success story. He wrote: “There is something undeniably beautiful about the country that enables such great leaps in one generation.” He admires integration-era role models like Shabana Rehman, whom he called “one of the most important Norwegians who has lived.” He favors integration over parallel societies, stating: “Marginalized groups’ opinions must be listened to in public, and not live in parallel societies.” However, he has not articulated specific positions on immigration levels, asylum policy, or border controls. His freedom-of-movement concerns surfaced primarily through COVID passport opposition.

Dimension 2: Free speech — the core of his public identity

This dimension contains Choi’s deepest, most extensively documented positions. He self-identifies as a “ytringsfrihetsfundamentalist” whose dream is “a world where expressions are met with counter-expressions, not prohibitions, moralism, and cancel culture.”

Hate speech laws (§185)

No explicit public position found on repealing or reforming §185 specifically. However, his philosophical alignment is strongly suggestive of skepticism. As a self-described free speech fundamentalist who opposes “forbud” (prohibitions) against speech, and whose publication has defended SIAN’s right to express itself publicly despite §185 convictions, Choi is positioned in the skeptical-to-opposed camp. This should be treated as strong inference, not confirmed position.

Content regulation and the DSA campaign

Choi’s strongest documented policy position is opposition to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which he has made a sustained editorial campaign. His June 2025 Subjekt commentary was unequivocal: “It smells terribly bad that the state should define correct and incorrect information” and “the fight against disinformation can become much worse than the disinformation itself.” He warned that enormous fines will create a “preventive” chilling effect as tech platforms over-moderate to avoid punishment, amounting to “forhåndssensur” (prior restraint). He extended this to the Norwegian government’s 2025 disinformation strategy: “I think we should fear the fight against disinformation far more than disinformation itself.”

His nuanced distinction: private platforms cannot truly “censure” because alternatives exist, but when the state can fine platforms, the effect becomes equivalent to state censorship. He argues competitive, editor-controlled media are “far better positioned to bring us closer to the truth than the state can ever be through suppressing dissent.”

Press freedom and media funding

Choi advocates reformed press subsidies favoring independent media over conglomerates, calling large media groups “offentlighetens Espresso House” — homogenized journalism. He is critical of NRK’s market dominance but, notably, not categorically opposed to state media funding. Subjekt itself receives pressestøtte. His position: redistribute subsidies toward independent and startup media to create genuine pluralism.

Academic freedom, cancel culture, and identity politics

Cancel culture is Choi’s signature issue, the subject of his bestselling book. He sees it as authoritarian — “because they try to control others’ thoughts, opinions, and attitudes” — and present on both left and right. He cites the Opinion UNG 2022 report finding 52% of young Norwegians self-censor for fear of social exclusion. On deplatforming, he insists: “The library should be the grand hall of the public sphere and democracy, where we should have room for people with opinions we don’t even like.”

On academic freedom, he covered the KHiO affair extensively — siding with five dissident students opposing demands to “decolonize” the curriculum — and cited the Kierulf report on researcher self-censorship: “There are forces in academia that let personal morality take precedence over research freedom.”

His identity politics critique is the ideological engine of his public persona. He identifies a “woke paradox” where “under the guise of being ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ you can demand that a dissenter be gagged, fired, and cancelled.” He insists: “Culture must never be reserved for certain groups of people.” Crucially, he identifies woke on both sides: “What Resett does is actually quite woke.”

Dimension 3: Property rights and economic freedom — the great gap

This dimension reveals the most significant absence in Choi’s public record. No positions were found on taxation, wealth tax, business regulation, housing regulation (TEK17), trade policy, monetary policy, CBDC, or price controls. His liberalist self-description suggests market-friendly instincts, but he has not translated these into public policy positions.

The sole well-documented economic-adjacent position concerns cultural funding. Choi has been sharply critical of Kulturrådet’s transparency: “If the Arts Council wants to be a closed shop, they shouldn’t be managing taxpayers’ money.” He called state-funded art “statsstøttet og stygg” (state-subsidized and ugly) and warned of a worst-case scenario where “the cultural sector becomes servile and follows government instructions to access public funds.” He participated in the documentary Prosjekt Sløseri (2022) about government waste in arts spending.

His position on cultural subsidies is reformist, not abolitionist — demanding transparency, accountability, and redistribution toward independent creators rather than elimination of public funding.

Dimension 4: Rule of law — the Drevdal principle and anti-quota stance

Quotas and affirmative action

Choi is firmly opposed to identity-based quotas in art, culture, and hiring. In a prominent 2020 Aftenposten op-ed, he argued against a 50/50 gender-quota petition for Norwegian art collections: “Not only is looking at what the artist has between their legs a complete derailment from assessing artistic quality — it will present a marathon of ethical dilemmas.” He uses a football analogy: “English football clubs don’t look like they do because of quotas. They look like they do because they look exclusively for talent.”

Due process and presumption of innocence

The Gaute Drevdal case is one of Choi’s most personally significant positions. He argued that former Natt & Dag editor Drevdal was publicly prejudged before trial — initially convicted to 13 years for nine rapes, then convicted of only one on appeal. Choi was a witness for the defense and devoted multiple book chapters to the case, arguing it exemplified how #MeToo-era dynamics can produce injustice. Subjekt’s offices were vandalized in response — windows smashed, “voldtekt” (rape) tagged over the sign. His consistent principle: “Questions of guilt and sentencing are decided in court, not through street justice and cancel culture.”

His book explicitly identifies rettssikkerhet (rule of law/legal certainty) as what woke threatens: “He believes the new vigilance threatens important liberal principles, especially free speech and the rule of law.”

No specific positions were found on judicial independence as an institutional question, or on emergency powers legislation beyond his general COVID-era criticism of state overreach.

Dimension 5: Freedom of association and religion — secularist liberalism

Religious freedom and secularism

Choi’s position is secularist-liberal — defending the right to criticize all religions equally. He highlights self-censorship around Islam as evidence of a free speech “glass ceiling”: “If you ask Norwegian caricaturists why they don’t draw the Prophet Muhammad, it’s not because they fear the police. It’s legal, but there is a glass ceiling somewhere.” When NRK cancelled a hijab debate, Choi organized one himself at Litteraturhuset, insisting “both hijab and Quran-burning” must be discussable. He criticizes anti-Islamic voices on the right (mocking Hege Storhaug’s claim about train colors) with the same vigor as progressive orthodoxies, and attacks “Christian moralists’ attacks on same-sex marriage” alongside “homo-activists’ attempts to boycott every conservative value system.”

Gender and trans rights — a shifting position

Choi’s trans-related positions have evolved notably. In 2018, he criticized radical feminists for excluding trans women from feminism. By 2022–2026, his position had shifted toward gender-critical skepticism: he advocates caution in gender-affirming treatment (“Only one in five who go to Rikshospitalet gets to change gender… it is very unethical to have a completely liberal line on this”), and was expelled from dating app Hinge in 2026 for stating “there are only two genders.” He distinguishes wanting discussion from being transphobic: “I could take a bullet for them to live as they wish, but Rikshospitalet should treat people with gender incongruence. It may be that not everyone who wants to change gender actually should.”

Civil society, association, and assembly

Choi favors independent civil society over state solutions in culture and media, consistent with his Kulturrådet criticism. He supported the right of excluded groups (sex workers, trans organizations) to march in the 8 March women’s march, calling exclusion “both exclusionary and undemocratic.” As an openly gay man, he is notably critical of Pride while supporting its core purpose: “If Pride is to celebrate diversity, they must also tolerate a diversity of opinion.” After the 2022 Oslo Pride shooting, he rejected accusations that his criticism “facilitated violence”: “Of course you can be critical of Pride and simultaneously condemn terror.”

Dimension 6: Digital autonomy — one strong position, many blanks

Internet freedom and the anti-DSA campaign

Choi’s single strongest documented position in this dimension is his sustained opposition to the DSA and the Norwegian government’s disinformation strategy. He warned of “speech police” and argued the government’s approach “will in practice make it harder to get perspectives the government and EU don’t like out there.” This is backed by extensive Subjekt coverage, public lectures, and podcast appearances throughout 2025.

When Facebook permanently blocked Subjekt’s ad account in 2021 (later reversed as an “error”), Choi stated: “This proves that the world’s most advanced machine learning technology is worse than the average editor at making editorial decisions” — and warned about “outsourcing the management of free speech to algorithms.”

Surveillance, data retention, digital ID, encryption, data ownership, AI

No publicly stated positions found on any of these subdimensions. Choi’s sole brush with surveillance issues came when police seized his phone in 2025, prompting him to emphasize kildevern (source protection) — but he made no broader policy statements. His digital autonomy profile is essentially a single-issue position (internet content regulation) surrounded by silence.

Conclusion: a cultural libertarian with a selective footprint

Danby Choi’s ISI profile is sharply asymmetric. Across the 26 subdimensions, he holds strong, well-documented, and internally consistent positions on roughly 10–12, moderate or inferrable positions on another 4–5, and effectively no public record on the remaining 9–11 — particularly in economic freedom, monetary policy, trade, surveillance, digital ID, encryption, and data ownership.

His strongest sovereignty scores cluster in Dimension 2 (free speech/intellectual autonomy) — where he is among Norway’s most radical public defenders of near-absolute speech freedom — and in specific subdimensions of Dimension 1 (COVID/bodily autonomy), Dimension 4 (due process, anti-quotas), and Dimension 5 (religious freedom, association). His Dimension 6 (digital autonomy) is dominated by a single passionate position on internet content regulation while remaining silent on surveillance, encryption, and data rights. Dimension 3 (economic freedom) is the weakest, with only cultural funding reform constituting a documented position.

Three patterns define his profile. First, cultural libertarianism over economic libertarianism: despite calling himself a “liberalist,” his public advocacy is almost entirely about speech, culture, and identity — not markets, taxes, or trade. Second, principled consistency across left-right lines: he critiques woke on both sides (calling Resett “quite woke”), opposes both Christian moralists and progressive activists limiting expression, and rejects identity-political expectations for himself as a gay Korean-Norwegian. Third, the personal is political: virtually every major position traces back to his lived experience as a minority who refuses to be categorized — the Drevdal case (his former workplace), the KHiO affair (art and culture), the koronapass debate (bodily freedom), and the cancel culture crusade (his own experience of being targeted).

The key analytical limitation for any ISI scoring exercise is that absence of position is not the same as opposition or support. Choi’s silence on taxation, surveillance, CBDC, or euthanasia could reflect genuine indifference, strategic avoidance, or simply the boundaries of a cultural commentator’s remit. His self-described liberalism provides a plausible prior for liberty-leaning positions on these topics, but documented evidence does not exist to confirm this across most economic and technical policy subdimensions.