X is likely losing money in the EU at this point, and complying with the rules would also cost them money and/or reputation. Maybe they should consider pulling out.
Why would they pull out? They can simply not pay the fine. Then the EU could either back down or be the bad guy that blocks X.com and seizes their operations in Europe.
>"I think it's very important to underline that DSA is having nothing to do with censorship,"
Only under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship.
>its failure to provide researchers access to public data.
I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website. Just look out the outrage over people's privacy that happens every time someone makes a public search engine of everyone's chat messages on a Discord that has an open invitation link. People's idea of privacy does not align with the idea that anything public should be widely spread with others.
This isn't too much different than the UK OFCOM doing the similar stunts of suing for Sanctioned Suicide and Kiwifarms for websites hosted in the US, and with no foreign stations of business.
I want to make no mistake - I personally think that Kiwifarms is absolutely gross with their harassment campaigns. But it does appear legal, and first amendment speech issue.
SaSu advocates for people who wish to commit suicide, a how-to. Its the final "my body, my choice" that every government wants to take away. So silencing is a thing. But again, 1fa issue.
I don't see the issue tbh. Why should the UK (or the EU) care about US laws likenthe first amendment? Nobody is forcing them to offer their website to Europeans, a simple IP block of UK users would likely be enough to avoid any legal risks for your US website example.
"The Commission said X's verified accounts which carry a blue checkmark do not correspond to industry practice and negatively affect users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts they interact with"
I think X is in the wrong here, the blue checkmark usually means the identity has been verified, in other social media, but also historic twitter.
Nowadays on X it only means that a fee has been paid, it's used for scams, some even claim to be Elon Musk or official twitter announcements, which is very ironic.
16 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 35.3 ms ] threadOnly under the EUs backwards idea that if it makes speech illegal it's not censorship.
>its failure to provide researchers access to public data.
I don't want my X posts being handed over to researchers even if they are technically public. On social media and chat platforms there is an expectation of the posts and chat messages you make to be private due to being in an obscure section of the website. Just look out the outrage over people's privacy that happens every time someone makes a public search engine of everyone's chat messages on a Discord that has an open invitation link. People's idea of privacy does not align with the idea that anything public should be widely spread with others.
I want to make no mistake - I personally think that Kiwifarms is absolutely gross with their harassment campaigns. But it does appear legal, and first amendment speech issue.
SaSu advocates for people who wish to commit suicide, a how-to. Its the final "my body, my choice" that every government wants to take away. So silencing is a thing. But again, 1fa issue.
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/when-trolls-take-on-tyra...
https://sanctioned-suicide.net/
I think X is in the wrong here, the blue checkmark usually means the identity has been verified, in other social media, but also historic twitter.
Nowadays on X it only means that a fee has been paid, it's used for scams, some even claim to be Elon Musk or official twitter announcements, which is very ironic.