It is not a secret that Big Tech Companies are biased against conservatives, have censored conservatives, and have discriminated against conservative views in the past.
Big Tech has repeatedly wielded its influence to quiet and push aside, suppress and marginalize conservative voices and perspectives. This bias influences how companies choose to censor certain voices and viewpoints. It also shapes fundamental decisions within major tech firms—from which accounts or content to amplify or suppress, to whether and how to implement “blacklists,” and even which products, partners, or advertisers to support. The rise of “cancel culture” further intensifies these trends, as, in times of debate over polarising issues, the focus often shifts to silencing and sidelining dissenting conservative views rather than engaging in open discussion.
But at the moment we are in the middle of the peculiar case of the EU’s attempt at censorship under the umbrella of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Actual left-liberal Brussells’ establishment has been trying since last December to silence the conservative voices, especially Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s supporters.
In an era where tech moguls, politicians, and regulatory bodies frequently clash over digital policy, Elon Musk has found himself at the center of a new debate—this time over the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). This landmark legislation claims to aim to “curb misinformation and harmful content online”, but it’s stirred controversy, with Musk and others raising alarms over potential censorship. The vicepresident J.D. Vance have voiced support for Musk’s critique, warning that the DSA could stifle free speech across Europe and set dangerous precedents worldwide.
What is the Digital Services Act?
The DSA, passed by the European Union, represents one of the most comprehensive attempts by any governing body to regulate the online sphere. The DSA was introduced to modernise rules around digital platforms, requiring more transparency from major tech companies on content moderation, ads, and algorithms. Among its main objectives, the DSA aims to “reduce the spread of illegal content, protect users from misinformation, and prevent the dissemination of harmful or offensive material”. The legislation applies strict obligations on what it terms “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs)—a category that includes companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, the latter now rebranded as X by Musk himself.
For Musk, who has vocalised support for minimal moderation policies on X, the DSA’s requirements pose a direct challenge to his vision. Under this new law, X and other platforms must respond promptly to flagged content or risk facing fines that could amount to billions of dollars. While the EU argues this regulation is necessary to protect its citizens, Musk, Vance, and others view it as a slippery slope toward censorship.
Musk’s Reaction: A Fight for Free Speech?
Since Musk took over Twitter in 2022, his approach to free speech has been widely debated. Musk has often argued that social media should be a marketplace of ideas, free from the constraints of heavy moderation. This philosophy was evident when he cut staff from Twitter’s moderation team and rolled back many of the platform’s previous policies regarding “hate speech and misinformation”. Musk’s perspective is rooted in a libertarian ethos: he believes users should be responsible for vetting information themselves rather than relying on tech companies to do it for them.
The DSA, however, stands in stark contrast to Musk’s principles. Under the new rules, platforms are responsible for removing “illegal content”, which includes anything deemed harmful to public discourse or offensive to specific groups. Musk has responded to the legislation with sharp criticism, seeing it as an infringement on free expression. He believes that, while the intent behind the DSA may be to protect individuals from harm, the law’s broad requirements could enable governments to control what people can say and see online. This could lead to a stifling of dissenting opinions, something Musk strongly opposes.
J.D. Vance Weighs In: American Concerns Over European Censorship
Senator J.D. Vance has been one of Musk’s more vocal allies, cautioning against the implications of the DSA beyond Europe. Vance believes that the legislation is more about controlling the narrative than protecting users. His concerns are largely ideological: he fears that the DSA’s restrictions could make their way into the U.S. market, threatening the First Amendment rights Americans hold dear.
According to Vance, the DSA’s structure allows European governments to act as gatekeepers of acceptable information, a power he believes can easily be misused. He’s warned that such censorship tendencies could become contagious, influencing policies in the U.S. as politicians look to tackle online disinformation and harmful content. In his view, Musk is right to resist, as doing so safeguards not just free speech on X but also a broader commitment to unfiltered dialogue. Vance also stated that “US could stop support for NATO if Europe tries to censor Elon Musk’s platforms”.
But, ironically, as the DSA tightens its grip on online speech in the EU, Musk and Trump could find themselves benefiting from the backlash. The clampdown on digital speech gives Musk and Trump a potent rallying point, enabling them to position themselves as champions of free speech in an era of increased regulation. By casting the DSA as an overreach by out-of-touch bureaucrats, they can appeal to audiences frustrated by what they perceive as censorship and authoritarianism.
For Trump, whose social media presence has been curtailed on major platforms since the Capitol riot in 2021, the DSA’s controversies provide an opening to argue that Big Tech and government are colluding to silence conservative voices.
The DSA’s implications for the U.S. aren’t merely hypothetical. There are already signs that American lawmakers are eyeing the EU’s regulatory approach as a potential model. As misinformation and harmful content continue to make headlines, U.S. regulators have discussed the need for stronger policies around social media content, echoing some of the DSA’s core tenets. While America’s First Amendment complicates any direct replication of the DSA, Musk and his allies are right to be wary: they saw a future where Europe’s digital policies could influence U.S. law, inching toward greater control over online speech.
For Trump and his base, this is particularly concerning. Conservatives have long criticised Big Tech for what they view as biased censorship of right-leaning viewpoints. Trump has positioned himself as a leader against “Big Tech censorship” and may seize upon the DSA’s rollout as evidence that Silicon Valley needs a new, deregulated alternative.
Digital Control vs. Freedom: The Crossroads for Future Innovation
The battle over the DSA ultimately revolves around two contrasting visions for the internet: a controlled environment where content is regulated and censored and an open forum where users determine what they engage with. Proponents of the DSA argue that it’s a necessary measure to create a “safe online space”, especially for “vulnerable groups”. They see Musk’s hands-off approach as reckless, increasing the risk of misinformation, hate speech, and online harm.
On the other hand, critics argue that the DSA is the start of a slippery slope. They fear that by letting governments regulate online discourse, society may slowly lose one of the internet’s most important qualities: its ability to serve as a free and open exchange of ideas.
Moving Forward: Musk’s Role in Shaping Global Digital Policy
Musk’s response to the DSA is indicative of a broader ideological stance that he’s likely to champion as he expands X’s global footprint. If Musk succeeds in resisting the EU’s influence, he may embolden other tech leaders to stand up against similar policies, curtailing a wave of regulatory enthusiasm. His critique could also resonate with users who feel that governments are too eager to police their speech, galvanising them to support platforms that resist censorship.
In conclusion, the DSA presents a unique battleground that pits EU’s desire for safe online spaces against the more libertarian ideals of tech giants like Musk. Trump and Vance are keenly aware of the implications: they see the DSA not just as a regulatory act but as a bellwether for the future of online discourse. Musk’s resistance may well create a rallying cry for those who value digital freedom, while simultaneously benefiting his brand and public image. The DSA’s impact was likely to ripple beyond Europe, influencing both tech policy and public sentiment on digital speech for years to come. But, something happened.
