How is fighting against dark patterns, opaque and arbitrary moderation decisions (among other things) an attack on (your very american conception of) free speech?
They seem largely focused on "illegal content", specifically referencing the Oct 7 attack on Israel:
> concerned the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel
> The compliance with the DSA obligations related to countering the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, notably in relation to the risk assessment and mitigation measures adopted by X to counter the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, as well as the functioning of the notice and action mechanism for illegal content in the EU mandated by the DSA, including in light of X's content moderation resources.
At least in the US, footage of a terrorist attack is not illegal. In fact, it often serves important journalistic and public interest purposes. Twitter is an important source of first-hand coverage of conflicts such as the Israel/Hamas conflict and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EU safetyism threatens to interfere with this important function.
> concerned the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel
> The compliance with the DSA obligations related to countering the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, notably in relation to the risk assessment and mitigation measures adopted by X to counter the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, as well as the functioning of the notice and action mechanism for illegal content in the EU mandated by the DSA, including in light of X's content moderation resources.
At least in the US, footage of a terrorist attack is not illegal. In fact, it often serves important journalistic and public interest purposes. Twitter is an important source of first-hand coverage of conflicts such as the Israel/Hamas conflict and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EU safetyism threatens to interfere with this important function.