I pulled myself out from Twitter instead a while ago, and I can only recommend. And I don't mean this in the "in favor of Bluesky/Mastadon" sense.
There are some types of content that I did lose access to this way, but in retrospect it was worth it. I found that the cost-benefit for it is just not there, not for me at least.
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.
I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it
Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.
> EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data.
IMO don't fall under this & you didn't argue that they did, I didn't list this possibility. Which of the listed violations do you think falls under that, and which ones don't?
This is what the article said. [edit, mostly wrong: "You gave the reason that was used for an investigation of TikTok, and I don't know where you got the blue check thing from."]
> I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it
edit: I got a bad load that cut off the end. What was actually said, however was,
> EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data.
Italics mine. The first line however, is about breaching "online content rules."
Then X shouldn't make their business available in the EU, but because X wants EU users, they're participating in a market where they need to follow the law of the market. If you disagree with X's choice of participating in that market, you should vote with your wallet/attention.
> 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
That might be, but the internet unfortunately doesn't work like that, they are public platforms, so the information there is treated as public information, which it is. If you make it invite-only, I understand the expectation of privacy and private conversation, but for platforms with open signup? Don't participate and share stuff you don't want to be public, it's kind of easy.
Right... and maybe next the US won't let Europe have any IP space. It's the internet. A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from..
So if I run a business from a country where cocaine is legal, I should be able to sell to users in the US? Are you sure you thought this through? Seems you're letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning.
US customs takes the product at the border, and if you transit the border expect to be arrested. Your customer should expect to be arrested as well.
Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.
Makes perfect sense for me in both cases.
Why is that? I think you can reasonably argue that a user should enjoy the protections offered by law in the place they live.
Any attempts by the US government to assert control of a foreign non-profit entity such as RIPE is only going to end in tears. I suspect would also empower those pushing to balkanise the internet should the independence of RIPE or ARIN be violated.
I'm not sure region specific intranets is a future anyone should want.
The irony of how blind you are. EU trying to enforce censorship laws on American companies will end in tears.
The DSA does not create new categories of illegal speech.
The EU makes a lot more sense when you think of it as the neo-Vatican super state power. A core aspect of this is asserting things makes them true.
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...
rich_sasha•50m ago