6 ms·

> 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*.