The red line of tension runs between Brussels and San Francisco, and is a "fault" that can shake the foundations of the internet. On the one hand, the European Commission brandishes the Digital Services Act as a shield against misinformation. On the other, Elon Musk and his X cry conspiracy, denouncing attempts to reach an agreement with him to have the contents on his social media censored and avoid sanctions. Clear rules? Social censorship? All the elements are there for an all-out skirmish, which could redefine the boundaries of freedom of expression online.
The clash between X and the European Commission
The European Commission has launched an offensive against X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, accusing it of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA) in several critical areas. This act marks the escalation of a growing tension between European regulators and one of the most influential social platforms in the world.
The Commission informed X of its preliminary opinion that it is violating the Digital Services Act (DSA) in areas related to dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers.
From the EU Commission press release
This statement of the Commission highlights specific concerns regarding X's practices, raising crucial questions on social media censorship and the regulation of digital platforms. But let's proceed in order (or at least let's try).
The accusations of the European Commission
The Commission highlighted three main areas of concern:
- The interface of verified accounts with the “blue checkmark”, which according to the Commission deceives users.
- Failure to comply with the required advertising transparency.
- Failure to provide researchers access to public data as required by the DSA.
These allegations raise fundamental questions about the delicate balance between freedom of expression online and the need to regulate digital content to protect users.
Elon Musk's shock response: social censorship
Musk's reaction to the Commission's accusations was swift and incendiary. In a tweet, the CEO of
The European Commission offered X an illegal secret deal: if we silently censored the content without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms have accepted that agreement. X didn't do it.
This statement by Musk casts an ominous shadow over the debate, suggesting the existence of secret agreements between the EU and other social media platforms to implement undeclared forms of social media censorship. If Musk's accusations were true (and at the moment there is no denial) the fear of a pervasive control of thought and speech in the democratic West would find distressing confirmation.
Here's a different rewrite of the piece:
Breton's sharp reply: no secret agreement with
The European Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry breton, wasted no time in responding to Musk's accusations. With a scathing tweet, he categorically denied the existence of secret agreements:
Be our guest, Musk. There never has been – and there never will be – any 'secret deal'. With anyone.
Breton then clarified the process, reversing Musk's narrative:
It is your team that asked the Commission to explain the resolution process and clarify our concerns. We have done this in line with established regulatory procedures.
The commissioner highlighted that the Digital Services Act (DSA) gives all large platforms, including X, the ability to propose undertakings to resolve any disputes. The decision, Breton specified, is entirely up to X:
It's up to you whether to offer commitments or not. This is how rule of law procedures work.
With a touch of challenge, then, Breton concluded his message with an allusion to the possible legal clash:
See you (in court or not).
This strong response not only denies Musk's accusations, but shifts attention to the transparency of the EU regulatory process, suggesting that the ball is now in X's court to decide how to proceed.
The implications for freedom of expression online
The clash between X and the European Commission raises crucial questions about the nature of freedom of expression in the digital age. On the one hand, there is a need to combat misinformation and protect users from harmful content. On the other hand, there is the risk that too stringent regulations could result in forms of social media censorship that undermine the fundamental principles of an open society.
The role of the Digital Services Act
Il Digital Services Act, at the center of this controversy, was conceived as a tool to make online platforms more accountable and transparent. However, its implementation is proving to be a minefield of legal and ethical complexities.
Transparency and accountability in relation to content moderation and advertising are at the heart of the DSA.
This statement by the Commission underlines the importance that the EU places on these principles, but also raises questions about how they can be applied without stifling innovation or unduly restricting freedom of expression.
Social censorship and freedom of expression: the possible consequences for
If the Commission's allegations are confirmed, X could face significant sanctions:
If the Commission's preliminary opinions were ultimately confirmed, the Commission would adopt a non-compliance decision which
could result in fines of up to 6% of the supplier's total worldwide annual revenue.
These potential sanctions represent a existential threat to X and could have far-reaching impacts on the entire social media ecosystem.
Social media censorship or anti-troll regulation? The precedent for other platforms
The clash between X and the European Commission (which follows ad similar j'accuse traded in the USA) is not an isolated case, as Musk himself states. The Commission has also opened formal proceedings against TikTok, AliExpress e Meta, signaling an intensification of regulatory efforts in the digital sector.
This more aggressive approach by European authorities could lead to a significant reshaping of the social media landscape, with implications for social media censorship, user privacy and freedom of expression online.
The role of whistleblowers
An interesting element of this story is the introduction by the Commission of a tool for whistleblowers:
The Commission has also put in place a whistleblower tool, which allows employees and other informed persons to contact the Commission anonymously.
This move could encourage the disclosure of questionable practices within social platforms, adding another layer of complexity to the debate over social media censorship and transparency.
The future of social media regulation
The clash between X and the European Commission represents a crucial turning point in the history of internet regulation. The outcome of this battle could define the future balance between freedom of expression online and the need to protect users from harmful content and misinformation.
The relationship between tech giants and regulators is entering a new era, characterized by increased scrutiny and potential conflict. The challenge will be to find a balance that preserves innovation and freedom of expression, while addressing legitimate concerns about online safety and transparency.
While waiting for clarification to arrive on the "under the table" practices denounced by Musk, the battle between X and the EU continues. It's not just a clash between a company and a regulator, but a confrontation that will define the contours of our digital society for years to come.
