“The psychological concepts of projection and reaction formation explain a lot about today's politics. People loudly insist they're determined to protect liberal democracy while advocating policies that would trample it. So it is with the European Union's Digital Services Act.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee last week released the EU's previously secret full decision to issue the first fine under the DSA to X (formerly Twitter) in December. It confirms what critics have warned: This law threatens everyone's basic liberties.
Yes, everyone's -- even those far from Europe. The sprawling 2022 law pushes social-media platforms to enforce European speech laws worldwide. Its supporters portray it as a technocratic, "content neutral" measure to ensure democratically enacted EU member states' laws are applied justly. The European Commission asserts that the DSA's "main goal" is to "create a digital space that respects citizens and consumers' fundamental rights" by "establishing a clear set of rules across the EU."
One of the most dangerous parts of the DSA is the massive power it hands to the commission, the EU's international regulatory arm. While much of EU regulatory enforcement occurs at the national level, which is more accountable to voters, the DSA empowers the commission to investigate platforms and levy fines of up to 6% of their global annual revenue for each violation. In these investigations, the commission acts as both prosecutor and judge -- accusing companies of noncompliance under a broad, ambiguous law, then deciding if companies' answers are enough to disprove the allegations. An American court would strike down such a law as both unconstitutionally vague and a travesty of due process.
The EU portrays the commission as a neutral administrator. Its 12-paragraph public explanation of its decision to fine X in December seemed consistent with that. The three violations sounded technical: X's current practice of minimally verifying blue-checkmark "verified" users' identities is deceptive; X hasn't adequately provided a public, searchable repository of all its advertising content as the DSA requires; and X isn't giving qualified researchers the access to its data that the law also mandates.
But the 184-page decision that American lawmakers made public shows the commission acting like a petty despot, with little if any regard for due process.
The decision relies on some stunning interpretations of law. It claims that X's blue checkmarks violate the DSA's Article 25, which says "online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces" in a way that "impairs" users' abilities to "make free and informed decisions." The commission's definition of "decisions" turns out to include mere thoughts: whether users believe an account is authentic on a platform "advertising itself as a source for information and news." As X protests in its response, the commission's broad interpretation of Article 25 puts "at risk virtually every online interface implemented by every platform."
Perhaps the commission has access to reliable psychics it doesn't disclose, but the evidence it does cite as its main basis for finding X's blue checkmarks noncompliant is laughable: a paper by a professor and three graduate students with tiny sample sizes, a dozen or so news articles critical of X, interviews with a former Twitter employee, and a blog post by a Russian cybersecurity company that the Biden administration banned from the U.S. market over national-security concerns.
The decision overall gives a sense that the investigators' conclusion was preordained. It asserts that because all of X's "alleged infringements were self-explanatory," the commission "primarily relied on gathering its own evidence." To ascertain whether X screened researchers' applications for its data too strictly, the commission reviewed 12 applications, four of them "in depth" -- tiny numbers given that X received 151 research requests in a single two-month period.
All this gives the decision a "Get Hoffa" tone. Elon Musk has been a thorn in the side of the commission with his forthright commitment to free speech. Though the commission's decision doesn't order X to perform any censorship, it does arm the commission with deadly force against X over speech restrictions in the future. It is still assessing whether X fails to combat "information manipulation" and to take down "illegal content."
Thanks to the December decision, the commission can now bring -- alongside any allegations of "hate speech" or "misinformation" -- the threat of financial ruin. Though the fines in this case came to a mere 120 million euros, the commission based that figure not on X's revenue but on that of Mr. Musk and "all legal entities directly or indirectly controlled by" him. That means a single future fine could be north of $6 billion -- or more than 200% of X's reported annual revenue.
The commission further raised the pressure for X to give in on censorship by ordering it to give researchers easier access to its data, particularly for those investigating general "misinformation" -- though the legal basis for this is questionable. This will make it much easier for pro-censorship figures -- such as those the U.S. State Department banned from the country in December -- to find fodder to support demands for the removal of content.
Unless Washington or sensible European voices push back against the commission, platforms and those of us who enjoy free online expression are largely at its whim. Let's hope someone on either side of the Atlantic cares about preserving actual liberal democracy.
---
Ms. Jacobson is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.” [2]
A despot is a ruler or individual with absolute, unrestricted power and authority, often exercising it in a cruel, arbitrary, or oppressive manner. The term originates from the Greek despotes, meaning "master" or "lord," and is frequently synonymous with tyrant or dictator. Despotism is a form of government where decisions are not subject to checks or balances.
Key Aspects of Despotism:
Absolute Authority: The ruler has complete control, often bypassing laws or constitutional limits.
Repression: Decisions are made without regard for the rights or freedoms of the people.
Historical Context: In the Byzantine, Roman, and Ottoman empires, "despot" was a high-ranking court title.
Modern Usage: It is used pejoratively to describe leaders who act unfairly or cruelly.
Historical "Despotates":
The term also refers to regions ruled by such leaders, particularly in the later Byzantine period, including:
The Despotate of Epirus (1205–1318).
The Despotate of the Morea.
The Serbian Despotate.
The Despotate of Dobruja.
In modern political science, this form of governance is marked by a concentration of power.
2. The EU's Secret Assault on Your Free Speech. Jacobson, Megan K. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 06 Feb 2026: A15.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą