> That will also help the company prepare for an "extensive independent audit" — as required by the new law — which is aimed at protecting internet users from i

> That will also help the company prepare for an "extensive independent audit" — as required by the new law — which is aimed at protecting internet users from illegal content and reducing the spread of harmful but legal material. (Emphasis mine. It's hard to imagine a more Orwellian move than using the phrase "harmful but legal" in laws.) I hope Twitter will do so transparently. When a tweet's spread is reduced, it should be clearly marked on the tweet itself, visible to its poster and any readers, that "This tweet has been identified as harmful but legal, and, in accordance with EU regulation X, its visibility has been reduced". Illegal tweets should similarly show up as black boxes, without content, but listing the specific rationale for their removal. And just like court documents are public, a list of all illegal tweets, including content, should be available to at least journalists and researchers, so that citizens can know how these censorship powers are being (ab)used. But I have a feeling they won't do that. I have a feeling the EU wants to hide the very fact that censorship is even taking place.