1) What's your evidence that this EU prosecution is related to Integtrity Initiative based in England? 2) What's your evidence that this is true? Which NGO are

1) What's your evidence that this EU prosecution is related to Integtrity Initiative based in England? 2) What's your evidence that this is true? Which NGO are you referring to, who are also related to today's news about the EU? 3) If we lived in a universe where X did breach the DSA, in three different ways, wouldn't that universe look very similar to the story in the OP? You say the law is not being wielded in good faith - would it change your opinion to learn that twitter are on this list https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_2413 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_... > 12. Providers of very large online platforms or of very large online search engines shall give access without undue delay to data, including, where technically possible, to real-time data, provided that the data is publicly accessible in their online interface by researchers, including those affiliated to not for profit bodies, organisations and associations, who comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 8, points (b), (c), (d) and (e), and who use the data solely for performing research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks in the Union pursuant to Article 34(1). It's literally the law. And you say "not wielded in good faith" as though the EU should crack down on every single digital service which doesn't provide research access - when in fact, Twitter/X are a very large online platform. 4) You didn't really answer - do you agree that there are some EU prosecutions, which ARE NOT motivated by conspiracy reasons? In such a world, there would have to be a real, genuine, non-conspiracy prosecutor sitting in an EU office, looking for companies who are breaking the law. And if such a person exists - how do you know they aren't responsible for punishing this instance of law breaking? Why does it have to be a conspiracy? There's no evidence for it. >but we both know this is real and well documented. Not at all; I think you have a problem with your reasoning patterns.