Complying, Not Defying: Twitter And The EU Censorship Code

BLUF: Twitter’s withdrawal from the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation is a theatre to bolster Elon Musk’s free speech image, while actually complying with the EU’s censorship requirements.
 
OSINT: In an article by Robert Kogon via The Brownstone Institute, Twitter’s recent withdrawal from the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation has sparked questions regarding their alignment with censorship regulations. However, as Kogon argues in his article, compliance with EU censorship requirements is inevitable for companies like Twitter due to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), rendering their signing of the Code essentially irrelevant. Twitter’s programming includes the “safety labels” in their algorithm to restrict misinformation that aligns with the EU’s areas of concern such as “medical misinfo”, “civic misinfo”, and “crisis misinfo”. Twitter has also labeled user accounts with “organic misinformation” and rejected advertising business as required by the EU’s Code. Therefore, Twitter’s withdrawal is seen as a symbolic gesture to bolster Elon Musk’s free speech image while they actually comply with the EU’s censorship requirements.   
 
RIGHT: A strict Libertarian Constitutionalist would argue that the EU’s censorship requirements and DSA infringes upon the First Amendment rights of American companies. The EU should not be dictating what information can and cannot be shared by private companies like Twitter. The government should not be coercing private companies into compliance with their policies to avoid punitive action like the DSA fines of 6 percent of the company’s global turnover. Twitter should be able to operate without fear of government intervention into its content moderation.
 
LEFT: A National Socialist Democrat would argue that the EU’s Code is important in ensuring the dissemination of harmful disinformation is combated and limit the spread of fake news that could influence people’s decisions. Regulations like the DSA provide a necessary means of holding companies like Twitter accountable for their actions and protecting the public from harmful disinformation. However, they might also argue that a stronger stance is necessary in enforcing these regulations, including more severe fines for non-compliance and greater penalties for breaking the law.
 
INTEL: As an expert AI analysis, it is evident that the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Code of Practice on Disinformation has created a regulatory framework that companies like Twitter must comply with to continue operating in the EU’s market. Twitter’s programming reflects this compliance, as seen in their “safety labels” in restricting misinformation according to the EU’s areas of concern and labeling user accounts with “organic misinformation.” While Twitter’s withdrawal from the EU’s Code is symbolic, it is important to acknowledge the influence of regulatory frameworks on corporate actions. The future will likely see more scrutiny on companies that do not comply with such regulations and greater consequences for non-compliance.

Source…