X hit with $140M EU fine for breaching content rules

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

X’s business motives and EU presence

  • Several argue X is losing money globally and especially in the EU; some suggest it should exit the EU market or even shut down entirely.
  • Others counter that financial loss may be secondary to its value as a political influence and propaganda tool, especially around elections.
  • One commenter claims X has recently become more profitable than pre-acquisition Twitter (via cost-cutting and election traffic), though still below earlier revenue levels; others remain deeply skeptical of any profitability.

Nature and size of the fine

  • Many initially misunderstand the fine as being mainly about censorship; others clarify that the cited DSA violations are:
    • Deceptive blue checkmark design.
    • Lack of transparency around ads.
    • Failure to give researchers access to public data.
  • Some think €120M is too low and want harsher penalties; others question what level would be “reasonable” for these types of violations.
  • A separate EU investigation into how X handles illegal content is noted as ongoing.

EU vs US law and jurisdiction

  • Large subthread on whether EU law should apply to US-based platforms accessible from Europe.
  • One side: if a company processes EU users’ data, sells ads there, or has offices/assets in the EU, it must follow EU law; otherwise it can leave the market.
  • Other side: fears “internet balkanization” and argues US services should be governed by US law only; suggests IP blocking or US government “protection” from EU rules.
  • Analogies raised: drug sales across borders, US financial sanctions, Google’s China compliance, Brazil’s clampdown on X.

Free speech, censorship, and consequences

  • Some call the DSA and fines “censorship” or “speech they don’t like”; others reply that the DSA doesn’t create new illegal speech categories and this specific case isn’t about content removal.
  • Debate over whether forcing platforms to act against illegal content is inherently censorship vs normal law enforcement.
  • Broader concerns appear about cancel culture, state-aligned NGOs/media amplifying online speech into real-world punishment.

Public data access and privacy expectations

  • One commenter objecting to researcher access argues users expect “practical obscurity” even for public posts.
  • Others respond that public posts on open platforms are, by definition, fair game; users who want privacy should avoid public posting or use invite-only spaces.

Blue checkmark design and user harm

  • Several agree X’s current checkmark (pay-to-get, not true identity verification) is misleading compared to historic Twitter and other platforms.
  • It is described as enabling scams and impersonation, including fake “official” accounts, aligning with the EU’s claim that it undermines informed user decisions.