US sanctions EU government officials behind the DSA

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and nature of the US sanctions

  • Several commenters stress that these “sanctions” are visa restrictions/travel bans, not financial sanctions or SDN listings.
  • Some argue this underlines the need for “sovereign” financial systems; others counter that the EU already exercises such sovereignty (e.g. freezing Russian assets, SWIFT being EU-based).

Sanctions, propaganda, and free speech

  • Debate over individuals sanctioned by the EU (e.g. for pro-Russian or anti-colonial speech) and whether they are “mouthpieces” or legitimate dissenters.
  • One side: sanctioning people for lawful political views is authoritarian; likened to punishing anti-war analysts such as Mearsheimer/Sachs.
  • Other side: sanctions are justified when people are effectively paid foreign agents spreading disinformation that shapes policy (e.g. allegedly delaying weapons to Ukraine, with real human cost).
  • There is disagreement on how much influence such commentators actually have versus political leaders’ own choices.

DSA vs “free speech” framing and the X fine

  • Several posts stress the EU case against X is about transparency and consumer protection, not speech content:
    • Misleading “verification” (blue checks),
    • Lack of ad transparency,
    • Restricting researcher access to already-public data.
  • Some view the US administration and tech platforms as miscasting this as a censorship/free-speech issue to protect opaque, profit-driven practices.
  • Others note earlier public threats by EU officials against X and suspect ideology and politics are also in play.

EU internal criticism: censorship and chilling effects

  • Some Europeans report seeing DSA used as justification for content takedowns and even arrests, especially in Eastern Europe, evoking “communist-era vibes.”
  • They argue DSA enables instant takedowns on weak proof, reverses the “innocent until proven guilty” norm, and makes platforms de facto responsible for user speech.
  • Defenders respond that the real problem is large-scale manipulation (Cambridge Analytica–style operations, bot farms, foreign-funded campaigning), not ordinary citizens, and that election interference justifies stricter platform duties.

US–EU geopolitics and hegemony

  • Many see the US move as a cynical attempt to weaken a competing political union and to promote far-right forces in Europe.
  • Others frame it as yet another example of hegemonic power being abused and normalized, with the US increasingly “self-sabotaging.”
  • Some comment that EU officials may even treat being sanctioned by the US as a résumé-enhancing “badge of honor.”

Bans, extremism, and democratic stability

  • Parallel debate over UK/EU bans on foreign figures (e.g. US far-right activists, possibly high-profile politicians or tech CEOs):
    • Pro-ban side: democracies should exclude neo-Nazis, violent agitators, and those actively undermining national interests.
    • Anti-ban side: this treats symptoms instead of causes; rising extremism stems from unaddressed economic and social grievances, not just “bad speech.”
  • Broader disagreement over whether regulating/banning extremist speech protects democracy or erodes it by suppressing dissent.