Some of what you say is either worse case interpretations, or only applies to very large platforms (>45 million monthly active users). The DSA also has good pa

Some of what you say is either worse case interpretations, or only applies to very large platforms (>45 million monthly active users). The DSA also has good parts like preventing sites from doing the following: Site: We have suspended you account and hidden all content you posted because our buggy AI thinks some content you posted violates a law or term of service. This is a final decision and cannot be appealed. You: What content? What law or term of service? Site: we don't have to tell you, and we don't have to tell you. We said this was final with no appeal so you are lucky we are even replying in the first place. You: now you must attempt to make a big enough shitstorm on twitter that the company might actually get a human to look at things and notice their shitty AI made a mistake. Instead the law requires identifying the content with specificity, identity which law or term of service they think was violated with specificity, they must have a human powered appeals process. It provides a non-binding out of court dispute settlement process, as an alternative to suing the company to force them to comply with the law. For reference, the act as enacted: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...