> It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe.
I don't believe that the author Mike Masnick is denying the existence of pro-censorship forces within the EU, and Masnick has criticized the censorship aspects present in the DSA itself [1] (as distinguished from censorship relating to only specific interpretations and implementations of the DSA, as in Thierry Breton's case).
> Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
The claim was not that there is literally no EU internet censorship, but that the US federal government under the Trump administration has been claiming instances of EU internet censorship while thus far failing to identify any such instances even though the administration controlled which criteria its investigators used.
As I interpret it, the purpose of TFA is to point out that:
- The US federal government has been using instances of non-censorship as evidence of censorship (e.g. TFA cites [2], which cites [3]).
- The US federal government has censored speech in ways that the DSA could do but hasn't yet done, and the US justified its own censorship by pointing to supposedly-already-happening DSA censorship that hasn't happened.
- The EU "removed" Thierry Breton (actually, he resigned), the current US administration has yet to punish one of its own censors. (This argument is weak to the point of uselessness because Breton's resignation might be unrelated to his censorship, but it's an argument that Masnick is making.) (In place of this point, I previously made a terrible and false generalization by writing: The EU's response to EU government censorship has been more substantial than the US's response to similar US government censorship.)
> It would be a very different Internet if people took responsibility for their own content.
Pedantically, people would take physical responsibility for the process of hosting their own content and substantially more moral responsibility for their own content. People already take legal responsibility for their own illegal content. What Section 230 does is minimize the risk of having to take legal responsibility (and/or de facto financial responsibility) for someone else's content, with exceptions regarding federal crimes, sex trafficking in both civil and criminal contexts, and intellectual property.
> US Tech Companies Must be Accountable in US Courts for Facilitating Persecution and Torture Abroad, EFF Urges US Supreme Court
reply