On Tuesday, following the European Commission’s announcement of a review of the Digital Services Act by the end of the year, MEPs took up the subject for a debate without a vote. Defending freedom of expression, censorship, respect, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, the spirit of Munich, European sovereignty being fought by Silicon Valley billionaires... Despite speaking time being limited to one minute, MEPs did not hesitate to use powerful images to talk about the future of the text. Or, to be more precise, the protection of citizens on the Internet, the responsibility of web platforms and freedom of expression.
Three and a half hours of debate in the chamber were marked by direct confrontation between pro- and anti-DSA on a frontline that largely overlapped the demarcation lines between populists and democrats and between pro-Russian and pro-European. Without nuance. These dividing lines are reflected in the positions of the Luxembourg MEPs interviewed by Paperjam. When contacted, (déi Gréng/Greens/European Free Alliance) did not respond to our requests.
It is the integrity of the EU's information space that is at risk".
For (DP/Renew), “the whole point of the DSA is to maintain a certain level of civilisation on the platforms. The DSA was designed to ensure that what is prohibited offline must also be prohibited online. And vice versa. And vice versa. A publisher who publishes a newspaper is responsible for the content. On platforms, there is no such responsibility. That’s what the DSA was designed for. Some say it’s an attack on freedom! No. It would never occur to anyone to say that the responsibility of a publisher has killed freedom of expression. It has been established that responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom. This must be extended to all platforms.”
For (LSAP/S&D), defending the DSA--“a very good piece of legislation”--meant defending all European regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Digital Market Act. “We have to fight foot to foot. Either we fight, or we give in to the Chinese, Elon Musk and his ilk,” he said and urged the European Commission to make the major platform operators respect it.
For Martine Kemp (CSV/EPP), “against a backdrop of foreign interference and artificial intelligence threatening the transparency and integrity of information, we must reaffirm our firm commitment to enforcing the Digital Services Act to protect democracy and the integrity of information on social media platforms. It is crucial to be vigilant and to take action, ensuring the effective implementation of this legislation which is essential to guarantee a safe digital space free from interference.”
For (EPP/CSV), “it is the integrity of the EU’s information space that is at risk.” She hopes that legislation will be strengthened to provide safeguards. And she acknowledges that the balance between maintaining freedom of expression and combating abuses that endanger democracy and freedom is a constant balancing act.
For the Greens/European Free Alliance group, of which (déi Gréng/Greens/EFA) is a member, the imperative is to conduct rigorous investigations and impose dissuasive sanctions in the event of non-compliance, to temporarily suspend personalised recommendation systems before the elections, to develop alternative community-focused social media platforms and technologies and to ban personalised advertising that spreads hate speech or disinformation.
Going against the grain of his colleagues, (ADR/CRE) believes that the DSA is nothing more than the return of censorship. “The left wants to increase censorship still further. As far as I’m concerned, the DSA needs to be fundamentally reformed. We need to remove everything that could be used for censorship, while retaining the provisions that protect young people. With what is happening in the United States, we feel strengthened in this approach. What Mark Zuckerberg is doing is a step in the right direction. The DSA in its current form is a dangerous instrument of censorship for our democracy.”
MEP Angel strongly believes the opposite and denounces a “far-right narrative.” The DSA is content-neutral, intervening only when something illegal occurs.” And he denounces the convergence of interests between the extreme right: “the big companies know that capitalism works better when there is no democracy. That’s why they are attacking democracy and freedom in Europe.”
Let them go! Personally, I’d love it if X no longer had a presence in Europe!
But in the final analysis, is the DSA a good tool for controlling platforms, and isn’t there a risk that these platforms, which remain very popular with the general public because of their clout, will use blackmail to shut down the service? On the question of whether the DSA is a good tool for controlling platforms, Goerens thinks it is for Europe. Until such time as the legislation passes the hurdle of an initial court ruling.
In Angel’s view, the planned fines of up to 6% of annual turnover are a deterrent--as long as the European Commission enforces the legislation. And he points out one limitation: the commission does not have the right to cut off a service. That remains the responsibility of the member states.
How about threatening to leave? “Let them do it! Let them leave! Personally, I’d love X to no longer have a presence in Europe! But Elon Musk won’t do it because he would lose money,” says Goerens. Angel also believes that platforms have no interest in leaving a market of 450m people with high purchasing power.And Wiseler-Lima doesn't think so either. But she doesn’t rule out the possibility that these platforms might be tempted by blackmail. “You can expect anything from certain people, especially if they are only acting in their own interests.”
European platforms? The big absentees
The lively debate overlooked one major point: why are the big platforms all American and Chinese and not European? “We are in the reaction business. Reaction is not enough,” said one MEP from the gallery. Quite alone.
The reason for this absence? Goerens is still looking for it. And while he is in favour of the idea, he believes it won't be easy. “Europe hates capitalism, but it loves capital. But capital has to come from somewhere. I’m a liberal, but if the only way to ensure that there is a platform that respects the rules of plurality and human dignity is to create a public platform, why not. We do have a public audiovisual sector... So why not?”
Citing the Draghi report, Angel believes that we should invest in such platforms in order to facilitate their emergence. “Taking care that what is created here is not bought up later by large multinationals, as has been the case, and incorporated into big tech.” But he believes that Europe has already taken too long. Just like Kemp, who doubts that a startup will be able to break into this niche.
Has Europe missed the boat? Wiseler-Lima fears so, given the strength of the positions acquired by the existing players. Above all, she believes that it is not up to the political sphere to take the initiative.
Kartheiser agrees with her. On this point, at least. “I have nothing against a private initiative, but I wouldn’t like to see a state or European Commission company in this field because it would be full of censorship. On the other hand, there are areas such as rating agencies where such initiatives would be welcome.”
The European Greens say they support promoting European technologies and independent social networks to create a fairer online environment.
This article was originally published in .