> Providers will be subject to significant moderation obligations, including: algorithmic transparency; prompt removal of illegal posts; systems to inhibit the

> Providers will be subject to significant moderation obligations, including: algorithmic transparency; prompt removal of illegal posts; systems to inhibit the spread of disinformation, hate, and other harmful content; compulsory co-operation with "trusted flaggers" to take down violating posts; and protection for users against false or predatory accusations. There's just so much to unpack there. * How is it determined which are the "illegal posts" (in a way which is "prompt" but still somehow has time for due process to occur)? * Who decides what is "disinformation", and why should it be removed if it is not "illegal"? * Same for "hate" and unspecified "harmful" content. * Who are the "trusted flaggers", and can users decide whether or not they have to trust their judgement? * How is the provider supposed to determine which online accusations are "false"? Actually, for that last one, I have a clue how it will work in practice. If you accuse any government official of crimes or misconduct, then that is a "false or predatory" accusation and the provider will ban your account. Even if that's not what the rules actually say on paper, I'm sure that providers which take such a "precautionary" approach will be subject to fewer fines under this new regime.