Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
The EU has opened formal proceedings against X (formerly Twitter) under the new Digital Services Act, probing how the platform handles “illegal content,” misinformation, and content moderation around events such as the Hamas attacks on Israel. Commenters debate whether this marks necessary accountability for a powerful platform or an overreach that threatens free expression, especially given X’s looser moderation stance under Elon Musk. The conversation also highlights concerns about EU regulatory speed and intent, the effectiveness of tools like Community Notes, and broader geopolitical issues such as foreign disinformation and state influence over online speech.
Scope and timing of the EU action
- Many note this is the first major use of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and comes very quickly after it takes effect.
- Some think timing with Threads’ EU launch is coincidental; others see it as setting a benchmark for big platforms.
- There is debate over which specific laws X may have broken; some expect years of back‑and‑forth over compliance.
Content moderation, illegal content, and “jokes”
- A leaked moderation guideline (via German reporting) suggests X now allows extremely offensive Holocaust-related jokes and may no longer suspend for physical threats.
- Discussion centers on whether such speech is illegal in the EU/UK or just distasteful.
- Some argue the Auschwitz “joke” is not direct incitement or denial and thus likely legal; others say it’s coded incitement or at least “grossly offensive” and potentially criminal, especially in the UK.
- Broader disagreement over whether offensive or hateful jokes should ever be illegal, and how much context and intent matter.
Free speech vs EU regulatory goals
- One side views the EU as increasingly censorious or “authoritarian,” citing hate-speech laws, COVID and migration discourse, and past attempts to weaken encryption.
- Others argue there is no absolute free speech right in Europe; platforms must follow local laws, and regulation aims at illegal content, disinformation, and opaque algorithms.
- Some see EU action as necessary defense against foreign disinformation and hybrid warfare (e.g., anti-vaccine, anti-immigration campaigns linked to Russia/China).
X’s moderation tools and Community Notes
- Skepticism that X can meet DSA duties (especially fast removal of illegal content) after mass layoffs.
- Some think X’s policies intentionally permit more borderline content rather than lacking capacity.
- Community Notes is praised by several as a scalable, non-removal-based correction mechanism, though others report it being used to spread falsehoods or only affecting viral posts.
Verification, algorithms, and advertisers
- The old blue-check system is remembered as useful for anti-impersonation and politically neutral until it became perceived as ideological.
- The paid check system is seen by many as degraded: it boosts paying users over relevance, making replies and discovery worse and less trustworthy.
- Some predict advertisers will be uneasy with laxer hate/offense standards and reputational risk.
Strategic responses and EU–US tension
- A minority argue X should simply exit the EU and operate under US free speech norms, letting Europe block it if it wishes.
- Others counter that EU states are entitled to their own speech and safety standards and that global platforms must adapt to differing legal regimes.