Since the article is very low quality, let me try to fill in some context. In the US, our constitution's first amendment is taken fairly seriously (by many, no

Since the article is very low quality, let me try to fill in some context. In the US, our constitution's first amendment is taken fairly seriously (by many, not all): - https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The way we think of it, is that government has no business shaping the speech of the people, because the speech of the people can shape the government. Government has to be able to flexibly change to meet the times and if governments decides it doesn't want to change, it can just silence people who would risk changing it without making it obvious they are being targeted. We all know that whenever government thinks it sees a threat to society or to the country, real or imagined, it will lash out in all directions to solve it. We just want to make sure speech control is not one of those directions. Now, we have the internet and it is not escaping regulation. Companies can be free to decide what is and isn't on their platforms. They are not the government and the first amendment is not about all forms of censorship, just government influenced censorship in spirit. Obviously, the big tech companies operate in many countries with many different languages and in cases where the local government requires censorship in some language most people in the US don't even speak, the negative impact is limited. A lot of people speak English, however and increasingly whenever some censorship law is applied in some new country its influence on English speaking content grows the more people from those countries use the same platforms as people in other countries do. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-admin-weighs-sanctions-on-eu-officials-over-digital-services-act-reuters-reports/ar-AA1Lchft https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-admin-weighs-sanc... - "The Digital Services Act, a flagship EU law, requires large online platforms to take stronger action against illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material. The law, according to EU officials, aims to make the digital environment safer while preserving freedom of expression." - "U.S. critics, however, argue that the DSA imposes "undue" restrictions on free speech and disproportionately impacts American platforms. In an internal directive issued in early August, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed U.S. diplomats across Europe to raise objections to the law and encourage EU governments and digital regulators to consider amending or repealing it." That law came into effect in 2022 and in can be viewed as bad in multiple ways: 1. It is government regulating "speech" in a more broadly defined way at an also broader scale, not companies. This would be considered unconstitutional here in the US. 2. The technical complexity of it encourages applying a lowest common denominator censorship across all content, applying it to even countries where the laws aren't applicable (for example, inside the US). So, it is effectively being applied in the US already and would be unconstitutional. 3. Many of the forms of censored speech are more commonly applied to conservatives and this can decrease the conservative participation on these platforms, which then means increasingly people are exposed to much higher majority left-leaning content. 4. It would be good for the CCP. It wants to expand the censorship of speech so that other countries look more favorably at their internal approach to it. It also wants to expand the influence of left-leaning thought, because it wants communism to be seen more favorably. It's not impossible that the goal for global communism never actually died and China's rapid growth has emboldened them. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115092243259973570 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150922432599... - "As the President of the United States, I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies. Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology. They also, outrageously, give a complete pass to China's largest Tech Companies. This must end, and end NOW! With this TRUTH, I put all Countries with Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations, on notice that unless these discriminatory actions are removed, I, as President of the United States, will impose substantial additional Tariffs on that Country's Exports to the U.S.A., and institute Export restrictions on our Highly Protected Technology and Chips. America, and American Technology Companies, are neither the “piggy bank” nor the “doormat” of the World any longer. Show respect to America and our amazing Tech Companies or, consider the consequences! Thank you for your attention to this matter. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" In a sense, if US companies don't censor at foreign government's demands, then they can be fined. If it is unreasonable or impossible and it simply becomes perpetual fines, it can also be seen as a basic tax to use big tech companies as another source of money to extract. The money is not necessarily the critical issue, though it will probably be seen in terms of the trade imbalance that Trump is trying to sort out. Fundamentally it is probably about putting pressure on these laws to get them either amended or repealed. Personally, if I reflect on it and history, this may very well be a national security issue. Not only for the US. At the same time with the rise of AI, there's a risk that unregulated digital speech can also become a national security issue in a much more dangerous way through automation. That line of thinking where, you might be a bot and bots aren't people, so it's ok to silence you! That's a very real dilemma. For the moment at least, I have no sympathy for the EU on this argument and find their government censorship push unconvincing as a global good. There may be others that know more about this, but this is just my understanding and perspective of it as a Texan.