EU rejects claims of censorship targeting US tech giants but Trump threatens sanctions

Date:
Thu, 28 Aug 2025 09:23:16 +0000

Description:
The Digital Services Act seeks to create a safer online environment, said the EU. Yet, according to US officials, it limits free speech and unfairly
targets American tech firms.

FULL STORY

No, the EU's Digital Service Act (DSA) doesn't constitute internet censorship and isn't designed to harm US big tech giants specifically.

This is the blunt reply from the European Commission on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, in response to accusations made by US President Donald Trump the day before Reuters reported .

On Monday, in fact, another report from Reuters revealed that the Trump administration was considering imposing sanctions against the European Union and any member states looking to implement DSA rules.

The EU's Digital Service Act seeks to create a safer online environment, said the EU, by limiting the spread of illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material, and disinformation on digital platforms. It also bans manipulative advertising practices.

Washington sees these actions as restrictions on Americans' freedom of
speech, with a government spokesperson confirming to Reuters that authorities are monitoring the situation in Europe "with great concern."

DSA enforcement decisions have so far affected X and Meta, but also Chinese-owned companies like AliExpress, Temu, and TikTok, said an EU spokesperson.

Beyond the EU

US officials' concerns around new digital regulations aren't limited to the
EU, though, nor to the Digital Service Act.

In a Truth Social post , Trump shared his intentions to "impose substantial additional tariffs" on all countries that target American tech companies with digital taxes or regulations, "unless these discriminatory actions are removed."

This comes only days after a pledge from the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to at least 13 US tech giants, including Apple, Alphabet (parent firm behind Google), Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, to resist UK and EU demands to weaken encryption and censor content.

Besides the EU DSA, the FTC raised the alarm about two UK laws in particular the Online Safety Act and Investigatory Powers Act .

US officials have been critical about the latter, following a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) issued under the law that hit Apple in February and
led the tech giant to remove its advanced end-to-end encryption protection
from iCloud in the UK market. The UK, however, has now agreed to drop its
Apple encryption backdoor request , in a victory for Washington.

At the end of July, mandatory age verification in the UK was also enforced as per the Online Safety Act, age-gating not just adult-only content, but also so-called legal but harmful material across multiple platforms like social media, dating apps, and even music streaming services, like Spotify.

Millions of Brits have so far turned to the best VPN apps to bypass age
checks, mostly for fear of the privacy and security consequences of sharing their most sensitive data with third parties.

======================================================================
Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/eu-rejects-claims-of-censor ship-targeting-us-tech-giants-but-trump-threatens-sanctions

$$
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On Thu 28-Aug-2025 9:19a, Mike Powell@1:2320/105.0 wrote:

Description:
The Digital Services Act seeks to create a safer online environment, said the
EU. Yet, according to US officials, it limits free speech and unfairly targets American tech firms.

Wish the US would do the same with South Korea with some of their ridiculous laws.

Such as..

"Privacy of face" Forbids taking someones photo without their permission, even in public. Used to mostly be considered a TORT law, but has been used more and more in criminal cases. Expanded in the early 20s to make taking pictures of "women" in swim suits at a public beach. Making it a sex crime if you being there with a camera made them feel uncomfortable. Penalties include large fines, jail, and or chemical castration.

"Defamation using truth". Speaking ill of someone, even if true can lead to large fines and jail.

Over broad defamation / libal laws. Saying or writing anyting negative about a person / business can lead to a tort suite, even if purely subjective. IE: Blogging resturant and saying anything negative. If the owner feels they have lost business because of your blog, you may find yourself in court. This is why you almost never see any negative reviews in Korea.

Vauge, overreaching stalking laws. Stalking act inacted in 2021 is so broad someone can charge you with stalking if you attempt to contact them after an uknown amount of no response, or asking for no contact. There are not provisions to allow for context (Most US states must be repeated, and threatening, you can't have one without the other..). Leading to more of a tool of retaliation than preventing an actual crime.

A lot of these laws do nothing to protect the public but are used by the business conglomarates (Chibol), or government officals to hide their dirty business in the shawdows, or stifle public commnet.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

On Sun 31-Aug-2025 9:47a, Mike Powell@1:2320/105.0 said to Rug Rat:

Beaches are a good place to take pictures of many other things... lighthouses,
sunsets... that have nothing to do with whoever is there. I usually try
to
ignore other people... being tagged for a sex crime just because my camera makes them uncomfortable is going way too far.

As a photographer and blogger (Non monetized), there are many times that including a subject in the photo showing their reaction, immerserion, or what have you into the scene itself tells a story, outside of me just rambling away. You are in public, there is no expectation of privacy. Take your feelings and go home and hide in your bubble.

While some of the methods "1st amemdment auditors" go to, to get the content for their Youtube/Facebook content justified is questionable. I fully support what they are doing. I have seen the flip side, and it is not someplace we want to go. Furthermore, these women chose to wear what they did when they stepped outside. They obviously don't feel uncomfortable about it, just because I capture it with a camera should not put the onous of shame, embarrasment, etc. on me! If they don't want friends, family, coworkers, etc. to accidently stumble upon it, perhaps they should think about it before hand. Yeah I know I will get some "womens lib" person out there all in a tizzy, but I really am beyond caring..

** On a side note. If you are taking unsolicited photos / videos for a blog / vlog etc, and that post or video is monetized, does that cross the line into needing a photo/video release? That would be a good debate topic

So if they do something bad, and you just tell what they did without opinion, it could be defamation? Consider the state of things right now,
I
am surprised we don't have one like this.

If you say it to them and only them, you are in the clear (Though being Korea, I am sure there are other laws they can get you on.). Though with or without oppinion if you saw something to a third party that "defames" them, you might want a lawyer on retainer.

Other part of Korean law that comes into play with some of these (Though more and more laws are doing away with this...)...

If the accused enteres into an agreement called a "Personal Appology Settlement." Which usually includes an appology without admitting guilt and a payment. The "agreived" will drop the charges or the prosecutor will decide not to procede with prosecution.. On one hand it saves the court a lot of time, but on the other hand opend the door for legalized extortion.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Apparently South Korea is not the only country with strict defamation laws.

Poland has similar "Insult" laws..

Poland's insult laws include provisions against insulting groups or individuals based on national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation, with penalties potentially including imprisonment up to three years. There are also laws protecting the good name of the Republic of Poland, the president, and other heads of state from public insult, also punishable by imprisonment. Additionally, the law prohibits the intentional offense of religious feelings and the public dissemination of antisemitic literature or the promotion of fascism, communism, or other totalitarian systems. Critics argue these laws can be misused to stifle free speech and public debate.
Key areas of Polish law related to insults and public offenses:

Public Insult of Groups or Persons:
Under Polish law, anyone who publicly insults a group of the population or a specific person because of their national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation, or their lack of religious denomination, can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three years.

Insult to the State or President:
Publicly insulting the Nation or the Republic of Poland is a criminal offense, as is insulting the president or a foreign head of state. Penalties can range from fines to imprisonment for up to three years.

Offense of Religious Feelings:
The law prohibits the intentional offense of religious feelings. There is also a blasphemy law (Article 196 of the Penal Code) that can lead to a fine, restriction of liberty, or a prison sentence of up to two years for publicly calumniating an object or place of worship.

Hate Speech and Promotion of Totalitarianism:
The law prohibits the public promotion of fascism, communism, or other totalitarian systems and the dissemination of antisemitic literature.

This again is why, while I might not agree with how the 1st Amendment Auditors go about bringing awareness to our 1A protection. A lot of it does seem to be geared towards getting hits to their social media platform for money. It does demonstrate how ignorant a lot of Americans are towards our rights, and for that reason I am all for it!

It does put me in an awkward position though in regards to buring of the flag in protest, as I do find it distasteful, and I understand the strong negative feelings it stirs up. However, as a big proponate of freedom of speech and expression, and the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that it is protected. I either have to shut up or be a hypocrite, and I refuse to be a hypocrite. :)

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Sorry for taking this post a bit afield.. :)

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)