4 ms·

>"I think it's very important to underline that DSA is having nothing to do with censorship," Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal

>"I think it's very important to underline that DSA is having nothing to do with censorship," Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship. >its failure to provide researchers access to public data. I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website. Just look out the outrage over people's privacy that happens every time someone makes a public search engine of everyone's chat messages on a Discord that has an open invitation link. People's idea of privacy does not align with the idea that anything public should be widely spread with others.

amarcheschi 11mo ago
The reason of the fine is, as stated by the article: EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  And it says that the investigation in regards to handle how they handle illegal content (speech they don't like) is still ongoing. So the potential fines over free speech are still upcoming.
  - perching_aix 11mo ago
    Protected speech is what's covered by "free speech", not all speech. If you disagree with what specific areas of speech they find illegal, say so, be clear about it, rather than presupposing your views in your claims in an emotion evoking fashion (e.g. "speech they don't like"). It's extremely tiring to decipher takes like these and they're everywhere recently. It's supposed to be convincing, yet to read it without finding it jarring, I'd already need to agree with you. Makes no sense!
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      There is preexisting context that the US and EU disagree about what speech should be allowed.
      - perching_aix 11mo ago
        That does exist, yes. And even in the US, there are categories of speech which are handled differently. This is why mentions of "free speech" are inherently red herrings to me. It's an idea, a mirage, and a rather absolute one at that, especially under certain interpretations. It is something to get people ideologically motivated by and then used in my opinion. To me, it bears little difference to run of the mill marketing speak about agile and scrum, for example. Just like with code, the difference between idea and implementation is ever-shifting and never nil, sometimes intentionally so. It is not helped by how someone can read the same situation very differently, which is the whole premise behind the "speech that you don't like" narrative in the first place, in the face of which loaded assertions fare really quite poorly: https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartment/ https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartmen...
- zb3 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Timon3 11mo ago
    This complaint can be valid if a) you're not guilty of the "official reason", or b) competitors are guilty of the same things and are not getting penalized. Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.
    - zb3 11mo ago
      Or c) where you know that these requirements would impact your enemy more than others, or make it quit EU
      - Timon3 11mo ago
        Sure, that's theoretically possible. Since the violations listed by GP: > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. IMO don't fall under this & you didn't argue that they did, I didn't list this possibility. Which of the listed violations do you think falls under that, and which ones don't?
- pessimizer 11mo ago
  > Elon Musk's social media company X was fined 120 million euros ($140 million) by EU tech regulators on Friday for breaching EU online content rules This is what the article said. [edit, mostly wrong: "You gave the reason that was used for an investigation of TikTok, and I don't know where you got the blue check thing from."] > I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it edit: I got a bad load that cut off the end. What was actually said, however was, > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. Italics mine. The first line however, is about breaching "online content rules."
mrtksn 11mo ago
EU should just force X to sell to EU owners or get blocked.
- p2detar 11mo ago
  I don’t think it will get blocked, but I do hope so. Seeing the damage mainstream social media causes to friends and family members, I believe nobody loses if it just gets blasted away.
embedding-shape 11mo ago
> I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU, but because X wants EU users, they're participating in a market where they need to follow the law of the market. If you disagree with X's choice of participating in that market, you should vote with your wallet/attention. > On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website That might be, but the internet unfortunately doesn't work like that, they are public platforms, so the information there is treated as public information, which it is. If you make it invite-only, I understand the expectation of privacy and private conversation, but for platforms with open signup? Don't participate and share stuff you don't want to be public, it's kind of easy.
- calvinmorrison 11mo ago
  "Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU" Right... and maybe next the US won't let Europe have any IP space. It's the internet. A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from..
  - remus 11mo ago
    > A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from. Why is that? I think you can reasonably argue that a user should enjoy the protections offered by law in the place they live.
    - wyldberry 11mo ago
      They can, they just need to use the EU equivalent of <app> they want. No one is forcing EU residents to use <app>.
      - schubidubiduba 11mo ago
        You've got it the wrong way around. No one is forcing X to operate in the EU. If they want to do that, they need to follow EU laws.
perching_aix 11mo ago
> Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship. The DSA does not create new categories of illegal speech.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  What it does is try and make companies enforce it. There is a difference between the EU making EU citizens not say something and making a US company remove the speech they do not like.
  - perching_aix 11mo ago
    There already exists extensive examples of in-platform content geo-fencing. YouTube is infamous for this. What prevents Twitter from employing a similar strategy? I further disagree that the legal system should be turned into a swiss cheese of enforced and unenforced laws, although I will admit, that is entirely a principled preference on my part. I strongly believe that bad laws should (ideally) be repelled, not worked around.
  - ben_w 11mo ago
    The USA has new visa rules. People who want a visa need to mark their social media accounts as "public": https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/06/announcement-of-expanded-screening-and-vetting-for-visa-applicants/ https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20... I wouldn't have a problem with that, except for the hypocrisy here. The EU is requiring transparency for *advertisers*.
fidotron 11mo ago
> Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship. The EU makes a lot more sense when you think of it as the neo-Vatican super state power. A core aspect of this is asserting things makes them true.
tensor 11mo ago
> I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. Too bad, don't make them public then. I'm not sure where this idea came from that "free speech" also means "free of consequences", but it sure is pervasive. It's always been the case in every society for all time that you need to be careful what you say publicly. The modern notion of "free speech" is related to retaliation from the government, it doesn't grant you immunity from people reacting to your public speech, nor does it grant you some sort of ill-defined "public speech anonymity."
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  It’s only recently that free speech could result in government-backed NGOs and government-cozy media collaborating to have a private citizen nationally tarred and feathered, fired from their job, and issued death threats within hours of what they thought was a semi-private conversation. This is absolutely a new state of affairs. In the past, news would travel—but slowly—and minor news about local citizens was not normally considered newsworthy in non-local markets unless it was extremely unusual and entertaining.
  - schubidubiduba 11mo ago
    You mean how it happened with Charlie Kirk and all the posts about him, that led to people being tarred and feathered and losing their jobs?
    - iamnothere 11mo ago
      Yes, exactly like that. Also random nobodies making crude jokes online, professors taking unpopular stances or refusing to adjust course materials for political reasons, individuals who argue with protesters, protesters who burn flags, Bibles, or Qurans, and citizens who simply express support for their preferred candidates. You thought this was some kind of “gotcha” because you pegged me as a right winger opposing cancel culture. I support free speech, period.

amarcheschi 11mo ago

The reason of the fine is, as stated by the article: EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it

charcircuit 11mo ago
And it says that the investigation in regards to handle how they handle illegal content (speech they don't like) is still ongoing. So the potential fines over free speech are still upcoming.
- perching_aix 11mo ago
  Protected speech is what's covered by "free speech", not all speech. If you disagree with what specific areas of speech they find illegal, say so, be clear about it, rather than presupposing your views in your claims in an emotion evoking fashion (e.g. "speech they don't like"). It's extremely tiring to decipher takes like these and they're everywhere recently. It's supposed to be convincing, yet to read it without finding it jarring, I'd already need to agree with you. Makes no sense!
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    There is preexisting context that the US and EU disagree about what speech should be allowed.
    - perching_aix 11mo ago
      That does exist, yes. And even in the US, there are categories of speech which are handled differently. This is why mentions of "free speech" are inherently red herrings to me. It's an idea, a mirage, and a rather absolute one at that, especially under certain interpretations. It is something to get people ideologically motivated by and then used in my opinion. To me, it bears little difference to run of the mill marketing speak about agile and scrum, for example. Just like with code, the difference between idea and implementation is ever-shifting and never nil, sometimes intentionally so. It is not helped by how someone can read the same situation very differently, which is the whole premise behind the "speech that you don't like" narrative in the first place, in the face of which loaded assertions fare really quite poorly: https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartment/ https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartmen...
zb3 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Timon3 11mo ago
  This complaint can be valid if a) you're not guilty of the "official reason", or b) competitors are guilty of the same things and are not getting penalized. Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.
  - zb3 11mo ago
    Or c) where you know that these requirements would impact your enemy more than others, or make it quit EU
    - Timon3 11mo ago
      Sure, that's theoretically possible. Since the violations listed by GP: > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. IMO don't fall under this & you didn't argue that they did, I didn't list this possibility. Which of the listed violations do you think falls under that, and which ones don't?
pessimizer 11mo ago
> Elon Musk's social media company X was fined 120 million euros ($140 million) by EU tech regulators on Friday for breaching EU online content rules This is what the article said. [edit, mostly wrong: "You gave the reason that was used for an investigation of TikTok, and I don't know where you got the blue check thing from."] > I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it edit: I got a bad load that cut off the end. What was actually said, however was, > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. Italics mine. The first line however, is about breaching "online content rules."

mrtksn 11mo ago

EU should just force X to sell to EU owners or get blocked.

p2detar 11mo ago
I don’t think it will get blocked, but I do hope so. Seeing the damage mainstream social media causes to friends and family members, I believe nobody loses if it just gets blasted away.

embedding-shape 11mo ago

> I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU, but because X wants EU users, they're participating in a market where they need to follow the law of the market. If you disagree with X's choice of participating in that market, you should vote with your wallet/attention. > On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website That might be, but the internet unfortunately doesn't work like that, they are public platforms, so the information there is treated as public information, which it is. If you make it invite-only, I understand the expectation of privacy and private conversation, but for platforms with open signup? Don't participate and share stuff you don't want to be public, it's kind of easy.

calvinmorrison 11mo ago
"Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU" Right... and maybe next the US won't let Europe have any IP space. It's the internet. A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from..
- remus 11mo ago
  > A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from. Why is that? I think you can reasonably argue that a user should enjoy the protections offered by law in the place they live.
  - wyldberry 11mo ago
    They can, they just need to use the EU equivalent of <app> they want. No one is forcing EU residents to use <app>.
    - schubidubiduba 11mo ago
      You've got it the wrong way around. No one is forcing X to operate in the EU. If they want to do that, they need to follow EU laws.

perching_aix 11mo ago

> Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship. The DSA does not create new categories of illegal speech.

charcircuit 11mo ago
What it does is try and make companies enforce it. There is a difference between the EU making EU citizens not say something and making a US company remove the speech they do not like.
- perching_aix 11mo ago
  There already exists extensive examples of in-platform content geo-fencing. YouTube is infamous for this. What prevents Twitter from employing a similar strategy? I further disagree that the legal system should be turned into a swiss cheese of enforced and unenforced laws, although I will admit, that is entirely a principled preference on my part. I strongly believe that bad laws should (ideally) be repelled, not worked around.
- ben_w 11mo ago
  The USA has new visa rules. People who want a visa need to mark their social media accounts as "public": https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/06/announcement-of-expanded-screening-and-vetting-for-visa-applicants/ https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20... I wouldn't have a problem with that, except for the hypocrisy here. The EU is requiring transparency for *advertisers*.

fidotron 11mo ago

> Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship. The EU makes a lot more sense when you think of it as the neo-Vatican super state power. A core aspect of this is asserting things makes them true.

tensor 11mo ago

> I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. Too bad, don't make them public then. I'm not sure where this idea came from that "free speech" also means "free of consequences", but it sure is pervasive. It's always been the case in every society for all time that you need to be careful what you say publicly. The modern notion of "free speech" is related to retaliation from the government, it doesn't grant you immunity from people reacting to your public speech, nor does it grant you some sort of ill-defined "public speech anonymity."

iamnothere 11mo ago
It’s only recently that free speech could result in government-backed NGOs and government-cozy media collaborating to have a private citizen nationally tarred and feathered, fired from their job, and issued death threats within hours of what they thought was a semi-private conversation. This is absolutely a new state of affairs. In the past, news would travel—but slowly—and minor news about local citizens was not normally considered newsworthy in non-local markets unless it was extremely unusual and entertaining.
- schubidubiduba 11mo ago
  You mean how it happened with Charlie Kirk and all the posts about him, that led to people being tarred and feathered and losing their jobs?
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    Yes, exactly like that. Also random nobodies making crude jokes online, professors taking unpopular stances or refusing to adjust course materials for political reasons, individuals who argue with protesters, protesters who burn flags, Bibles, or Qurans, and citizens who simply express support for their preferred candidates. You thought this was some kind of “gotcha” because you pegged me as a right winger opposing cancel culture. I support free speech, period.