EU metes out first-ever Digital Services Act fine, dings X for blue check deception The European Union has issued its first-ever Digital Services Act fine, slapping Elon Musk's X with a €120 million penalty for breaching the bloc's rules on ad transparency, data access for researchers, and its revamped blue-checkmark system. The fine, equivalent to $140 million, comes two years after the EU began …
Trust the Americans to give EU law the finger and to tie things up with endless appeals instead of paying up.
They're all criminals whose websites should be completely blocked by the EU until either the fine is paid or the criminals win their FINAL appeal - no "stays" during the court proceedings.
If american businesses operate in Europe then they are obliged to abide by European law. It's so simple to understand.
It's also very strange for the left-pondians (fcc and jd vance amongst others) to lecture Europe on suppressing free speech when we have already seen multiple instances of the shitehouse cracking down on colleges and students for speaking their minds on israel, ice, trump.et.c.
>If american businesses operate in Europe then they are obliged to abide by European law
Internet stretches that concept of law a bit though.
If the X servers serving EU users are in the EU (and my guess is they're in Ireland) then it's a slam dunk and X would do well to move them. But if outside the EU then the EU should butt out.
Servers are irrelevant, if X is selling any ads in the EU or paying users based in the EU for content generation then they're doing business in the EU. Since ads are how they make their money, and paying content creators is how they drive traffic there isn't any reasonable way they can drop out of the EU. At least not for the current size of the fine. At some point if the fines get too large maybe Elon's beancounters say it makes more sense to pull the plug on the EU.
If X were (almost) any other company then you'd be right, but X isn't. They're on a mission, defending free speech, and this current EU business can be made to support that narrative, which X will use to further boost their brand.
And ad revenue from buyers in the EU I doubt amounts to too much. But even if it did, how exactly could the EU (ie Bruxelles) actually kill that revenue stream if X's ad selling offices are in the US? All Bruxelles could do is make it illegal for EU businesses to buy ad's from X, but the Trump administration would NEVER allow that to happen.
So the EU should not be allowed to restrict what foreign (or at least US) entities the companies in its jurisdiction may do business with while at the same time it is perfectly fine for the US to go after European companies when they do business with anyone on their sanction list including Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the ICC.
You need to be a pretty firm believer the US are the goods guys and can't ever do harm to buy into that argument.
Oh you silly billy.
X is not on a mission to allow free speech, its mission is to allow right wing hate speech, lies, and musk propaganda, whilst censoring what they call "woke" words, criticism of Musk, and uncomfortable facts about republicans.
Even most MAGAs can see that. The fact you think it is a "free speech" site is rather sad.
Oh yeah, before I left the cesspool, 90%of the ads on there were obvious scams. Ironically, it's the MAGA nutters who need the protection from these scams, as they are the ones too stupid to discern fantasy from reality.
How many scams did you fall for?
https://www.techpolicy.press/the-eus-fine-against-x-is-not-about-speech-or-censorship/
https://www.freepress.net/blog/elon-musk-absolutely-enemy-free-speech
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html
"Defending free speech" LOL
So long as it is speech Elon agrees with. He's kicked off plenty of people for contradicting him or pointing out his lies. Whatever amount of shenanigans you thought Twitter was guilty of under its old ownership, it is guilty of at least that much and likely much more under Elon's dictatorship.
>ad revenue from buyers in the EU I doubt amounts to too much.
I'd been wondering about that, so looked into it.
Best estimate seems to be about 10-15% of revenue comes from EU. But their compliance costs are higher (even considering only the Direct ones), so there's an even smaller impact on Profit.
Basically, it's well within fairly painless reach to simply cut off the EU.
But to nail them properly by still allowing freedom of speech access for the hapless citizens just now slowly waking up to the actual structure & intent of the EU, X should modify its current over-cautious anti-bot code to allow more seamless use via Tor or VPN.
The souvenir mug is still subject to VAT…
The fun and games is whether the US website sells to the EU - typically will price in euro’s and ship to the EU, or if I have to use a courier service that will handle the shipment and thus will also bill for the duties and taxes due.
"If you're in say Germany, so part of the EU, and you order say a Trump souvenir mug from the Whitehouse gift shop in Washington, it is US law that applies to that purchase, not EU or German law"
US law only applies at the point of sale (the White House Gift Shop, which is in the USA.
On entry to the EU (or UK for that matter), the first thing that happens is that VAT will be charged to the recipient on both the amount paid for the mug, and on the cost of postage and packing to the EU.
It also becomes subject to EU laws regarding safety - probably not going to be a problem with a mug, but there are many things which are intercepted at the point of import and confiscated and destroyed because some aspect of them does not comply with laws and regulations within the destination country.
I find it an interesting coincidence that someone who appears to have fallen for the narrative that the EU is insignificant and doesn't count where the US is concerned, should have used 'Mug' as their example ;)
you're in say Germany, so part of the EU, and you order say a Trump souvenir mug from the Whitehouse gift shop
This is going to a very, very small market though.
I suppose I might order a Flump souvenir mug...but only as a gift for somebody not even worth sending a dog's egg to.
*sigh*, no, that mug who ordered the Trump merch will find the merch still has to comply with EU laws and could well be confiscated at the customs clearing house if it's known to not do so.
If that weren't the case then Europe would be awash with guns and ammo mail ordered from the states, the roads would be clogged with Tesla Homers and we'd all be eating rodent faeces covered, bleach washed chicken.
Companies operating in a country need to comply with the laws of that country.
@BartyFartsLast & others.
The AC who posed the example of the mug is correct and you are wrong. Reread what was said.
The claim was "it is US law that applies to the *purchase*, not EU or German law".
Which was said to refute the earlier AC's claim that "if the consumer/audience is in Europe then EU law applies".
To spell it out: any law applying to the mug once it arrives in Germany has no bearing on what law applied to the purchase in the US.
And guns flooding the EU is different because there is US federal and state laws (stacks of it) applying to purchasing firearms.
And your final sentence that "Companies operating in a country need to comply with the laws of that country" further shows you are missing the pioint. The discussion was about foreign companies remote selling to the EU, hence the example of the Whitehouse gift shop *n Washington*.
Sign indeed.
@Alien Doctor 1.1
"It's also very strange for the left-pondians (fcc and jd vance amongst others) to lecture Europe on suppressing free speech when we have already seen multiple instances of the shitehouse cracking down on colleges and students for speaking their minds on israel, ice, trump.et.c."
Giving them a little credit this administration did apologise for how badly the state had behaved previously and that they were trying to restore the freedoms taken. It didnt seem too long ago people lamented the direction of increasing censorship over the internet that had been a place of more freedom. Now countries are wanting to crack down on encryption and vpns as well as decide what is 'the truth'.
"If american businesses operate in Europe then they are obliged to abide by European law. It's so simple to understand."
It's not so simple. If an American business has local representation in the EU, i.e. it has an office and staff there, then that representation has to abide by EU law. If it doesn't then good luck to the EU trying to enforce any penalties they try to send to that PO box in the US.
"It’s an American company, European law is irrelevant."
OK, let's turn that round. A European company sells in the US. US law is irrelevant. No tariffs. Is that how you see it? If not could you produce a reasoned argument as to how the two cases would be different?
"Just because" or something that reduces to it would not be a reasoned argument.
Or even better, a European-based company sells a service to customers in the US, which is illegal under US laws, oh I don't know; gambling, various forms of pornography, etc.
And when challenged and threatened with legal action, can they say, 'well screw you Uncle Sam....we're not American so your laws are irrelevant'?
It works both ways!
I think you are thinking of the Cayman Islands. And given it is very wealthy Americans doing a tax dodge via the islands, the current administration lauds (and would pardon) anyone caught. Several have wondered how long it will take the don to pardon the Jan 6th pipe bomber. He was one of don's supporters.
Yes, but no. Yes, Europe has to comply on the tariffs because they are on a physical product. No, Europe would not have to comply if a US citizen accessed something on the Euronet if the Euro site used nothing in the US. It would not matter if half the transaction took place in the US if the US side was the customer. It would only matter if the European company had US based equipment.
Americans have to pay US tariffs. Trump can set his tariffs as high as he likes and no-one in the EU will pay a cent. Now if he wants to do export taxes...
It'd still be down to who pays, if export tariffs were applied. With physical goods, it's easier given there's a widget being imported or exported. So widget is +50% regardless of direction, and who pays would be much the same, ie the importer/exporter. If it's a US widget, it'd cost +50% to export to the EU, and exporter would pay, or try to pass the cost onto the EU buyer.. Who might not pay.
I think it gets more FUN! if the tariff wars expand to digital services, which the EU has threatened to do, and then how that would be applied & collected. Which is already sort of done with VAT on point of purchase.
I agree, Trump (import) tariffs won't cost anyone in the EU a cent, but they'll be costing some in the EU their jobs & profits & taxes because export markets are being lost - wholly or partly. Nowadays there are very few (if any) goods that the EU produces to which there aren't almost as good alternatives available to US consumers.
Yes, that is what the tariffs are intended to address in the medium-to-long term. China has siphoned out most of the West's manufacturing industry/jobs/etc by deplying its vast slave labour force (at least 800 million by UN standards) at near-zero rates. By shifting the tax point from 100% income tax to part tariff tax, it becomes economic for American firms to invest in manufacturing domestically.
> Yes, that is what the tariffs are intended to address in the medium-to-long term
There was no medium- or long-term strategy evident when the tariffs were created, especially with that idiotic board and the whole "tariff the penguins" nonsense. It was all just knee-jerk, innumerate "punishment for not treating the US fairly".
Any claims now of there having been any "strategy" really need to be backed up, as they otherwise look like post-hic rationalisation and wishful thinking.
That is, in fact, exactly what happens, yes.
Just as an example, Ireland has propped itself economically by offering itself as a primary global tax-dodging facility, such that if I joined Facebook, none of the money FB made off me is taxable in my home country because legally everything happened in Ireland.
So, just to be clear: this "Gotcha!!" example is in fact just a statement of the real-world legal reality of the real-world for people living in the real-world, which is this one, which is real.
This is just cost of doing business.
Big corporations can do whatever they want as long as they throw some scraps to hungry bureaucrats all under guise of making things fairer for tax payer.
EU is having a laugh.
If they were serious, they'd simply fine X out of existence or ban it wholesale.
Normally yes, just like you say, cost of doing business, provided that is X actually pays the fine - and my suspicion is they won't as a matter of principal. Neither side will back down and with Trump in office EU won't dare escalate so like so many things to do with the EU it'll drag on for years.
If X pays this (picayune) fine without complaint, under the illusion it is "cost of doing business", but doesn't change what it is doing, then we have the start of a winning streak against them: the EU can, as TFA points out, keep issuing "periodic penalty payments." Which can gently increase in both size and frequency, putting the "cost of doing business" on an upwards slope.
If the EU directly tries to "fine X out of existence" in one go, that'll get tangled up immediately and only the lawyers win. If the can get X to just pay up to get the EU out their hair then there is precedent set for being told to pay up the next time. And the next. And the next. And ... (as I can't see X ever understanding that they could actually start being transparent, accurate and/or honest, that is no longer in their playbook).
It wasn't censorship, it was the exact opposite. They're accusing the EU of doing that which they're doing themselves.
Now, shall we talk about censorship in the US?
The US doesn't censor, it simply acts to protect its citizens against Fake News and "Unamerican Thinking"*
* After the embarrassments of the 1950s, the definition of this phrase has been simplified to avoid confusion; just convert the term "Unamerican" into a null and you are pretty much there.
As the list of 18 books banned in Utah includes a recent Margaret Atwood novel, I shall take it as read that the other 17 titles are equally worthy.
Does anyone have an email for the Utah school board, so I can send them my thanks for making it so easy to flesh out this year's Christmas Wish List?
>Twitter before Musk bought it, used to reserve blue check marks for accounts deemed noteworthy and needing protection from impersonation.
This is complete fiction.
They were handed out to anyone "PLU" or showing strong anti-pleb behaviour or the subject of media attention. They were handed out as inducements to attend Twitter presentations. They were handed out to people who knew someone who knew someone in Twitter. I've run across a nontrivial number of anon accounts who just logged in one day to discover they'd magically got a bluetick. Etc etc
There was zero "verification" in the sense the EU is now claiming, for the majority of bluechecks.
What it WAS was a signal that you were "one of the in-crowd". The end.
The EU from the get-go has shown a deranged obsession with the switch of meaning of the blue badge (HEAVILY announced in media and on X) from "SPECIAL!person! Not a pleb!" to "Subscriber". It actually took them quite a while to think up the extra "reasons" of ad info and free database dumping.
Even MORE surreally: X has ACTUAL verified checkmarks for formal entities. Eg government, eg companies. These are not bluechecks, though, so the EU is demanding they be changed to blue.
...
>Musk changed all that in a bizarre bid to make blue checks less exclusive, rendering them nothing more than the mark of someone willing to pay for a premium X subscription.
A "bizarre bid" to turn around the catastrophic financial dumpster fire that Twitter was, by doing the "bizarre" thing of... earning money.
I have to say: this is the first time I've ever seen someone try to re-badge "subscription revenue" as "bizarre".
>The move led to chaos as paid blue-check accounts impersonated brands, bots multiplied, and users were left unsure who to trust, one of several issues that drew the EU's scrutiny under the DSA.
Of the 3 items here: the last 2 are complete fiction. Charging money for premium service creates bluecheck bots? Other way round. Users are all socially-terrified emotionally-damaged 10-year-olds who believe that the twitter screen is their mummy? Less than 0.3% of X users in Australia are under 16 let alone under 10.
Re the 1st: yeah, a handful of pranksters and ratbags slipped in faster than the brands: verified themselves, subscribed, then changed their usernames. Lasted about 2 weeks. Mostly amusing. The only damage I'm aware of is to the blood pressure of the PR depts in a few companies, on realising they needed to get onto X to claim their brand back.
This is complete fiction.
It's the EU. People could also just bung Twitter employees cash for a checkmark. But
"While the DSA does not mandate user verification, it clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place," the Commission said in its press release announcing the fine.
So it doesn't mandate user verification, nor specify how that should work, but is going to fine X €45 million for not complying with a non-existant regulation. Then it's much the same for the other two fines for failing to permit access to confidential, proprietary and commercially sensitive information, ie-
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065&qid=1712840246608#art_40
12. Providers of very large online platforms or of very large online search engines shall give access without undue delay to data, including, where technically possible, to real-time data, provided that the data is publicly accessible in their online interface by researchers, including those affiliated to not for profit bodies, organisations and associations, who comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 8, points (b), (c), (d) and (e), and who use the data solely for performing research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks in the Union pursuant to Article 34(1).
So If X (or any VLOP) doesn't make information available by API, then 'researchers' looking to try and scare off X's advertisers can go swivel. Ohnoes! So 'researchers' like say, Media Matters, or Labour's CCDH might find it harder to spew out misinformation & hate speech. About the only point behind the fine that has merit is perhaps amending X's ToS for a vetted researcher carve-out for scraping. But Article 40 still doesn't seem to grant 'researchers' like Media Matters any right to try and pair advert (or advertiser) to post, if that information is non-public via API.. And as far as I can tell, the DSA doesn't give any rights to access advertisers repositories, and doing so may fall foul of the GDPR anyway.
But I guess if the EU wanted to pick the right foot.. I mean target for a test case, they've picked the right VLOP. . Especially for testing how well (or badly) the EU's vetting and approval of 'researchers' is performing.
Absolutely.
What the EU bureaucracy are after (and have nearly got) is control of public discourse through censorship. They want *all* the tech firms to silently censor any discussion that they (the EU) do not approve of, otherwise they'll be repeatedly hit with massive fines on trumped up charges until they do.
What really puzzles me though is any mention on these forums of facial recognition, or digital id, or any other thing which is another step towards big brotherism & totalitarianism, is (rightly) met with howls and near unanimous condemnation. But any mention of the EU when they're doing the equivalent or worse, is met with near unanimous approval and is defended. Is the explanation as simple as the hatred so many El Reg commentators have towards Musk, that it blinds them to the reality of the EU's boil the frog journey to totalitarianism?
What the EU bureaucracy are after (and have nearly got) is control of public discourse through censorship. They want *all* the tech firms to silently censor any discussion that they (the EU) do not approve of, otherwise they'll be repeatedly hit with massive fines on trumped up charges until they do.
And Chat Control is still heading down the pipelines. I think some of the proposals are semi-reasonable, ie I shouldn't be able to advertise healthy, nutritious Eel Flakes, enriched with thallium and other minerals. There are obvious public safety issues. I probably shouldn't be able to all Elbonians should be stabbed with the nearest pitchfork, but maybe should be able to say that Elbonians bombing apartment buildings is not very nice.
Problem is things like 'hate speech' and 'misinformation' are very poorly defined, and some of the entities, eg CCDH or Media Matters aren't exactly neutral or independent arbiters of truth. But controling the narrative is worth billions, and the EU (and UK) is creating the tools to do this. Common sense should apply, ie most of us know, or should know what hate speech is, so providing there's a mechanism to report that, that should be enough. Assuming that mechanism works, and isn't biased.. And we know what it is that we shouldn't be saying, which isn't always very obvious. And some of the biggest spreaders of misinformation & disinformation are immune, ie news publishers, presumably because they are (or should be) regulated seperately.
So it's all a bit of a mess. Case in point-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd6xyjj0gnjt
Some pro-Trump accounts based outside US, X’s location data suggests
X briefly provided some geolocation information for X accounts, the Bbc naturally targets Trump. Others pointed out that Venezuala's Machado's tweets were originating from the US, not Venezuala where she's supposed to be in hiding. But then if geolocation were accurate, revealing that might not be very safe. Or the fuss over X identities might just reveal that tweets are actually coming from PR people, not the account holder. So far, so normal and X has a mechanism to claim accounts, if there's impersonation.
But any mention of the EU when they're doing the equivalent or worse, is met with near unanimous approval and is defended. Is the explanation as simple as the hatred so many El Reg commentators have towards Musk, that it blinds them to the reality of the EU's boil the frog journey to totalitarianism?
Proabably. The West is becoming increasingly authoritarian and arming itself with the tools to make the situation worse. Plus the EU is increasingly becoming less democratic as it consolidates power and control. I think there's a big intersectional element, ie people who are anti-Musk, Brexit and have faith in EU policies might be blinded to reality.. Which is where censorship becomes even more dangerous.
@Jellied Eel
"I think there's a big intersectional element, ie people who are anti-Musk, Brexit and have faith in EU policies might be blinded to reality.."
Increasingly I can see how people went along with the Nazis, USSR, Communist China, etc. I recently got into playing Helldivers and wonder if they intentionally lampoon these people ('the right side of history' being right on the nose). You dont have to think back too far to remember people fearing this kind of controlling mentality.
Increasingly I can see how people went along with the Nazis, USSR, Communist China, etc. I recently got into playing Helldivers and wonder if they intentionally lampoon these people ('the right side of history' being right on the nose). You dont have to think back too far to remember people fearing this kind of controlling mentality.
Case in point being Kaja Kallas, who's virulently Russophobic, and needs some remedial history lessons. Not good traits in the EU's most senior diplomat. But recently put foot in mouth with claims that Russia invaded the most countries evah, rather ignoring the way Germany holds that dubious record. Or other dubious bits of history, like this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Estonian_SS_Volunteer_Brigade
Who weren't strictly volunteers, many having been conscripted, but Estonia had been on the 'wrong side of history'. Of course it had also been occupied by both the Nazis and Soviets, so might hold some grudges. Glorifying Estonia's Nazi* past would be illegal under both Estonian and EU law, but discussing it shouldn't be. But that's the problem with censorship and effective moderation. Estonia might not want their past discussed and the EU is giving them the tools to supress that discussion. Or just the way the 'X is full of Nazis!!' meme, which was mostly based on Media Matters carefully crafted queries that found.. 2 examples of ads + Nazis, one of which was a discussion of history.
But part of that history was the whole 'never again'.. except the EU is copying censorship mechanisms previously adopted by the Gestapo & Stasi, and of course the model George Orwell proposed in 1984, and we're sleepwalking into fascism, totalitarianism and increasing authoritarianism.. Despite freedom of expression being enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights have always been qualified, but the qualifications have been greatly expanded and are increasingly vague. So a person was apparently threatened with arrest after calling someone a muppet. Does this mean the Bbc will now have to re-edit Only Fools and Horses to remove one of Del Boy's favorite epithets because that's become 'hate speech'?
Or just the way the DSA imposes censorship obligations on VLOPs, yet what they're supposed to censor isn't very clear. Perhaps the EU should post a handy 'Naughty List' of Wrongthink, so that both service providers and citizens know what is forbidden?
*See also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Estonian)
There's something.. strangely familiar about those Nazi's insignia...
Oh look at history it has horrible things! Never mind what happens right now.
History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. Btw, did you manage to get your golden toilet? Pointing out corruption in Ukraine was previously branded as 'Russian misinformation', and yet now appears to be actually true. Or just a good example of narrative management and propaganda. Once misinformation, now information being used as an instrument to remove an obstacle to peace..
"What the EU bureaucracy are after (and have nearly got) is control of public discourse through censorship"
Quite the contrary. It is the USA where the current leadership is trying to control public discourse through censorhip, and are suffering under the delusion that they can also control public discourse elsewhere in the world by the same method (which is what all of your posts seem to be trying to do).
Fortunately, most Europeans (both within and without the EU) and their leadership are not letting this happen.
Your rant about EU totalitarianism is I think, a very clumsy attempt to gloss over the fact that in less than 12 months, Trump has turned the USA most of the way from a democracy to a totalitarian extreme right wing dictatorship. Sort your own shit out before accusing others of doing what your own nation is doing to start with!
>Europeans (both within and without the EU) and their leadership are not letting this happen
If you are a european, and you truly believe that, then you are a lamb, or more likely a stinky old wether, being led to the slaughter. What you think is not being allowed to happen, is happening. Baaaah.
This post has been deleted by its author
"X, when it was still known as Twitter before Musk bought it, used to reserve blue check marks for accounts deemed noteworthy and needing protection from impersonation. Musk changed all that in a bizarre bid to make blue checks less exclusive, rendering them nothing more than the mark of someone willing to pay for a premium X subscription."
Shouldn't that read "Musk changed all that in a desperate bid to staunch massive losses due to the sudden exodus of reputable advertisers"?
-A.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
