E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against X

Shift to Mastodon and “indie” platforms

• Some argue the most effective EU response would be politicians, journalists and institutions leaving X for federated platforms (Mastodon, Pixelfed), using their presence to move audiences.
• Others counter that social networks follow “where ordinary people are”, not vice versa; many say most Europeans aren’t on Twitter at all, but politicians and media still rely on it.
• A compromise view: public bodies can stay on X but should mirror content on open platforms so citizens aren’t forced to use X.

Musk, oligarchs, and EU–US power politics

• Several see Musk as an oligarch with unusual access to US power, making him a symbolic target in a broader EU–US trade and influence clash.
• Others argue Europe is hardly free of oligarchs itself and that “class mobility” and corruption comparisons with the US are more nuanced.
• Some commenters frame the prospective fine as “lawfare” and part of a trade war that may entangle NATO and broader EU–US relations.

DSA, disinformation, and censorship

• One camp: companies only respond to strong penalties; DSA enforcement is necessary to curb deceptive design and disinformation, much like consumer‑protection or anti‑fraud law.
• Opposing camp: the “disinformation” angle is seen as speech control cloaked in safety language, with fears of selective enforcement, slippery slope toward authoritarianism, and echoes of communist-era propaganda controls.
• There’s disagreement over whether the “free marketplace of ideas” has failed (given widespread belief in falsehoods) or is working and should be preserved, with better education suggested as an alternative.

Blue checkmarks as deceptive interface

• Supporters of the EU case say turning an identity/credibility marker into a paid badge—while visually similar—fits DSA’s ban on interfaces that mislead users; many non‑online users may not understand the change.
• Critics argue the blue check never truly signified “trustworthy information,” only identity verification or insider status, so calling its change a major harm is overreach.
• Some worry vague “no manipulation” wording lets regulators retroactively weaponize design choices against disfavored platforms.

Piercing Musk’s corporate veil

• The thread notes the DSA allows fines up to 6% of global turnover; regulators are reportedly considering including Musk-controlled firms (e.g., SpaceX) via “common control.”
• Defenders say most jurisdictions already look through sham separations when a single person treats multiple companies as one (shared staff, internal deals, unilateral asset moves).
• Skeptics see this as “Calvinball” or lawfare that will deter investment: if regulators can aggregate all assets of an owner, limited liability becomes meaningless.

Trade war tactics and retaliation fantasies

• Some praise targeting Elon as “smart”: low economic cost to the EU, high pain for a politically influential billionaire, and a potential wedge between him and US leadership.
• Others propose aggressive countermeasures: 100% tariffs or sanctions on Teslas, bans on EU government advertising on X, or SpaceX raising prices for EU launches.
• Several warn escalation (on top of existing US tariffs) could damage both sides and possibly weaken NATO cohesion, though some say US commitment to Article 5 is already in doubt.

Corporate incentives, antitrust, and user harm

• Commenters link X’s behavior to a broader pattern: once platforms achieve dominant network effects, they optimize ads and extraction, not user welfare.
• Fines are compared to financial‑sector penalties: often treated as a cost of doing business unless large and frequent; some call for stronger antitrust and structural remedies.

Broader fears: EU overreach and “digital borders”

• A minority worries that once the EU normalizes speech and platform control under DSA and related laws (e.g., Cyber Resilience Act), more sites—including HN—could become inaccessible.
• Another thread argues that some kind of “digital border” may ultimately be inevitable to shield societies from foreign influence operations, likening this to China’s Great Firewall or US moves against TikTok, while acknowledging the obvious authoritarian risks.