Post New

Trump administration accuses Europe of "attack on all" Americans

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday denounced the European Commission’s $140 million fine against Elon Musk‘s social media platform X, calling it an attack on American tech companies and “the American people.”

Rubio wrote on X, “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments. The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/trump-admini...

Right out of the dictator's playbook. $140M is barely walking around money to Musk, but make it an insult to all USians. Just like Bush #43 "they hate America" and Hillary "they have a problem with strong women".

Steve

Trump and Rubio are f*cking idiots who are making our enemies stronger, while weakening ties to our natural allies. WTF.

Right out of the dictator's playbook. $140M is barely walking around money to Musk, but make it an insult to all USians. Just like Bush #43 "they hate America" and Hillary "they have a problem with strong women".


How about we take a step back and ask ourselves, "Should the European Union be allowed to dictate what speech is allowed on American social media platforms?"

...and start there.

Since somebody is going to come along and challenge the premise of the question, and since somebody else is going to dismiss the premise as just another RWTRUMPHITLERMAO conspiracy theory, let's use a left-leaning site to establish the basic facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4831049-...

Europe’s plot to regulate political speech in America
by Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor - 08/17/24 10:30 AM ET

Turley's even a liberal!

One of the greatest threats to free speech today is the European Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

In Europe, free speech is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free speech by criminalizing speech deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is reaching record numbers. It has, however, silenced the rest of society.

According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.

They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.

Now let's ask, what is the EU's "Digital Services Act" and how is it being used?

https://eu.boell.org/en/2025/02/18/trump-vs-europe...

What rules do platforms now have to follow?
Put simply, the DSA comprises four pillars. The first chapter defines liability rules, i.e. answering the question of when platforms can be held liable for illegal content shared by their users.

So if, say, a person travels to the US from the UK and visits a gun range, shoots a gun, and has a picture taken of themselves posted on social media...then that outlet may be liable for promoting a criminal act. And be fined accordingly.

From there the law gets murkier:
These platforms must publish reports analysing what "systemic risks" emanate from their services. What exactly such systemic risks are, remains unclear: the DSA lists broad categories, such as negative impacts on fundamental rights, civic discourse and electoral processes, public safety and health, as well as adverse impacts relating to gender-based violence or a person's physical and mental well-being. However, there are no definitions or concrete examples of these risks. It is therefore up to the most powerful platforms themselves to decide how much responsibility they take for these societal risks and how they mitigate them.

"Systemic risk" to what? If Joe Blow says "men are men and women are women" then somebody may have a problem with that and here's your "systemic risk". Under the DSA then...these companies have to "mitigate" these "risks". Somehow.

The example they cite about the cancelling of the Romanian elections absent a direct link between TikTok and voting should give anyone pause.

"Turley's even a liberal!" - Dumbass Dope

You are really an idiot. There is no other word to describe you. Turley is not a liberal. He tells you a liberal so you will think his words mean something.

Europe hates its own citizens far more than it hates America.

That's why it's cool with invasion by radical Islamists who form gangs to rape little girls which is OK according to Sharia Law because they are infidels.

How about we take a step back and ask ourselves, "Should the European Union be allowed to dictate what speech is allowed on American social media platforms?"

Israel dictates policy to NYC

****ripped from the headlines****

New York mayor issues order targeting Israel divestment weeks before Mamdani takes office

The first order prohibits city agency heads and staff from engaging in “any policy that discriminates against the state of Israel, Israeli citizens based on their national origin, or individuals or entities based on their association with Israel”. It also prohibits officials overseeing the city pension system from making decisions in line with the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which Mamdani has said he supports.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/04/ne...

Steve

Israel isn't in the E.U., you fucking Nazi

let's use a left-leaning site (The Hill) to establish the basic facts:

MBFC: Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on balanced editorial positions and news reporting that is low-biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims and a lack of full transparency in distinguishing opinion headlines from news.

ME: The Hill is not considered left leaning.

Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor - 08/17/24 10:30 AM ET Turley's even a liberal!

ALLSIDES: Jonathan Turley is a author source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Lean Right.

MBFC: Overallwe rate JonathanTurley.org as right-center biased based on criticism of Democrats and the defense of Donald Trump’s legal positions. We also rate him Mixed for factual reporting due to referencing his own writings and making statements that are not entirely true.

So Turley is a right winger and not a liberal. This is dissembling, I know you worked hard at that, so you get an E for effort.

So far you are 0/2.

So if, say, a person travels to the US from the UK and visits a gun range, shoots a gun, and has a picture taken of themselves posted on social media...then that outlet may be liable for promoting a criminal act. And be fined accordingly.

You don't explain how you arrive at the above conclusion in your example, just reference four pillars and post a link.

ME: You don't seem to realize that the UK is not part of the European Union anymore, so the person in your example isn't subject to the DSA. Further, there are gun ranges all over Europe and the UK. Are you under the impression it's illegal to fire guns at ranges in Europe or the UK? The person in your example is doing everything legal at the gun range in the USA, so exactly how is it illegal to post that picture in the UK? Or in Europe under the DSA. Let's ask about your example under the DSA, but change it to a Frenchman.

"No, posting a picture of yourself legally shooting at a US gun range as a Frenchman isn't inherently illegal under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), but it depends heavily on the content of the photo, the platform's rules, US laws, and French laws; the DSA regulates platforms, not individuals, but platforms must act on illegal content, so you'd need to ensure the photo isn't violent, unsafe, or promoting illegal firearm activity under US/French law or platform Terms of Service (ToS)."

So far you are 0/3. It's baffling why you think a picture of legal activity at a gun range in the US is promoting a criminal act if posted in France. Do you understand that that isn't illegal and happens regularly? Here's a link to a Frenchman at a Paris Gun range:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tacticalgear/comments/1cy...

"eu.boell.org" is the URL for the Brussels office of theHeinrich Böll Foundation, a German political foundation affiliated with the German Green Party. Its content reflects a specific political perspective (Green and center-left) rather than being a neutral or unbiased source of information on the EU.

BOLL: From user rights to systemic risks (about a third of the way down_

"...Reading the first, long-awaited risk reports is, however, sobering. A good example is TikTok. In the context of the Romanian election, serious accusations were made against the Chinese platform: following the publication of reports by local civil society groups, in which TikTok was accused of amplifying the content of the ultra-nationalist presidential candidate Calin Georgescu, and a report by the Romanian secret service alleging cyber attacks and foreign influence, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the election results. Shortly afterwards, the European Commission initiated proceedings against TikTok for failing to manage systemic risks related to the integrity of the Romanian elections. TikTok's own report on systemic risks also addresses election-related misinformation; however, it focuses on the dissemination of fake news and ignores factors such as the misuse of TikTok's recommendation algorithms or the manipulation of the platform to spread content via inauthentic accounts in a coordinated manner. This illustrates the significant discretion that platforms have in defining systemic risks and implementing their own risk mitigation strategies. " From Boll

"Călin Georgescu's "bias" refers to his controversial far-right, ultranationalist, anti-western, and pro-Russian stances, as well as allegations of foreign interference and campaign funding fraud that led to the annulment of Romania's 2024 presidential election."

And this is a classic: see link to IFES below

"III. Re-Opening the Case: Court Findings

The declassification of intelligence reports two days later prompted the Court to revisit the matter and in its Decision No. 32, the Court acknowledged the declassified evidence of interference. The Court further highlighted serious irregularities in electoral campaign financing. Official campaign declarations submitted to the Permanent Electoral Authority reported no spending by one candidate, a figure starkly contradicted by the scale of the candidate’s online presence and findings in intelligence reports.

This discrepancy points to undeclared sources of funding, potentially linked to external entities or third-party actors operating in violation of national laws. Such practices reflect a broader trend of strategic corruption. Key issues raised include: third-party financing, in which undisclosed and unregulated funding flows through proxies to finance digital campaigns, obscuring its origins and bypassing legal limits; hybrid political finance warfare, in which external actors finance information campaigns or boost online exposure, exerting undue influence while remaining hidden from public scrutiny; and weak oversight by election management bodies (EMBs) that are insufficiently equipped to oversee online advertising expenditures carried out through intricate digital networks and platforms."

https://www.ifes.org/publications/romanian-2024-el...

ME: Gee, that may be evidence something was off in the election, eh? Are you saying you want the above and external actors to be allowed to interfere with elections and not guarded against? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

As for systemic risk:

"Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), systemic risk refers to large-scale negative impacts stemming from a platform's design or function, covering issues like illegal content, fundamental rights violations (e.g., freedom of speech, privacy, child rights), civic discourse/electoral integrity, public security, public health, gender-based violence, and harm to minors' mental/physical well-being, requiring Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Search Engines (VLOSEs) to identify, analyze, and mitigate these broad societal risks, not just individual user-level issues."

Dope: "Systemic risk" to what? If Joe Blow says "men are men and women are women".

I don't see a problem with what Joe Blow said. Sounds like an individual user-level issue. I think they mean something different than your example.

Adios.

Oops, the range is in Nevada, but he talks about the short range in Paris. But they have longer ranges.

Yeah definitely Turleys too intelligent and logical to ever be mistaken for a liberal.

You guys are the most openly hypocritical nutjobs imaginable.

"Yes my niece will be completing her college studies in Switzerland."

One of you dufenshcmertzes was bragging about that recently.

"Yes my niece will be completing her college studies in Switzerland."

One of you dufenshcmertzes was bragging about that recently.

It’s hell when your bottle of scotch lies empty on the floor at 4:21am and the liquor store doesn’t open for several more hours.

I remember those days.

But there’s help if you want it, marco.

Wow, long reply.

It's short on substance and argumentation.

MBFC: Overall, we rate The Hill Lea

First, let's reject your premise that a) you're allowed to point to some other body as the Arbiter of Things (I reject that they are, and I reject you get to unilaterally set up whatever rules you want). Your left wing Calvinball don't fly here, so find someone else to play it with -or- go play with yourself.

JonathanTurley.org as right-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I didn't link whatever site you have. I linked an op-ed from Turley on a site that you even admitted was a good one.

Egads, man. Try to keep track of your own tactics for once.

You don't explain how you arrive at the above conclusion in your example

I follow the news. You don't.
I used a real-life example knowing that none of you left wing goobers will have heard of it because none of you actually consume real news sources. But here it is since you obviously missed it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15346839/...

Brit, 50, who was thrown in a cell 'for posting holiday photos holding a gun' says he plans to SUE 'the thought police' who arrested him - and leave the UK

I knew one of you fish would swim into that particular net, and there you go, flounder. Now be a good chap and go whine about the Daily Mail. I picked that one deliberately also.

You don't seem to realize that the UK is not part of the European Union anymore

The thread title is "Europe hates America", and since the UK is a physical part of Europe, you're really looking bad at this point.

Come on, man. When the safety rotates, rip the seam. This isn't that hard. </Brady>

<Skipping past your attempt to used reddit (lol) as a source>

I don't see a problem with what Joe Blow said.

Well. You get one thing right.

But guess what? If you offend someone on social media, you get a visit from the police in the UK.

You lose. Again. When are you going to understand that a) I control these back and forths and b) you lack the firepower mentally for them?

All you have to do is...not be a jerk.

Baloney Boy,

You're the alcoholic, not me.

It's obvious.

First, let's reject your premise that a) you're allowed to point to some other body as the Arbiter of Things (I reject that they are, and I reject you get to unilaterally set up whatever rules you want). Your left wing Calvinball don't fly here, so find someone else to play it with -or- go play with you

Verbal vomit doesn't negate that fact you're wrong.

I didn't link whatever site you have. I linked an op-ed from Turley on a site that you even admitted was a good one.

So you're not following, not understanding, OK typical. Yes the Hill is a good site, but you think Turley is left leaning anwhich means you are out to lunch.

You don't seem to realize that the UK is not part of the European Union anymore

The thread title is "Europe hates America", and since the UK is a physical part of Europe, you're really looking bad at this point.

Trying to cover up your embarrassment in using UK as an example for European DSA when UK isn't part of Europe and DSA doesn't apply because of the embarrassment? You should be embarrassed.

Then you go on to site an event that actually supports that DSA is a good idea? You talk about laws you don't understand what they're for and how they work. Typical Dope.

Verbal vomit ...is what you have to say when your Calvinball doesn't have any takers.

So you're not followin

No. You thought you'd nailed me on a nitpicky detail and instead got hoisted up on your own petard. If you're going to play this game you need to be perfect at it.

And you're not. Not even close.

Trying to cover up your embarra

No. You failed. You keep trying to make each one of these threads about me instead of the issues, but because you suck at this you keep face planting and taking L's.

Staple this one to your forehead and walk around the house with it. Then go log in as your other identity on this board.

Pro tip:
I'm here to discuss issues. Perhaps you should be also.

No. You thought you'd nailed me on a nitpicky detail and instead got hoisted up on your own petard.

No. You got every single detail in your spiel wrong and are now pissed and arguing air. My mistake was to treat you nicely.

1. You called a right wing writer liberal

2. You used a person from the UK in your example on the DSA., when the UK is not in Europe U anymore and not subject to the European U
DSA. That's fairly basic and you got it wrong.

3. You classified a legal activity of firing a rifle in a gun range in the USA as a criminal activity that could be sanctioned and fined in Europe - without explanation of how the DSA applied to it, and it doesn't.

4. You posed an individual person stating "men are men and women are women" as being subject to fines, etc., due to systemic risk which refers to broad, large-scale negative impacts on society arising from the design or functioning of large online platforms regarding illegal activity by groups, deliberate large misinformationa campaigns, etc.

5. The big example in Romania was the court negating an election because the Russians did a huge amount of illegal advertising for a candidate that is pro Russia and anti-Western. THAT'S THE BEST EXAMPLE THAT SUPPORTS DSA!

So you were wrong or waaaay off on 4 of 5 points, and your 5th point actually supports DSA

And you think people don't actually see this? And you think if you pretend that didn't happen and bluster that's going to work? People see it and know that you don't think through what you are writing and then try and bluster your way out of being totally fucking wrong.

No

No.
pissed and arguing air. My mistake was to treat you nicely.

Lulz. Who’s the angry one? That’d be you. And I haven’t even started in on you and look how you are. Treat others nicely? You constantly fire off insult and belittling comments.

That your skin is megathin is on you.

The rest of this is you doing the things you accuse me of. Yeah, you’re a lib, all right.

Jonathan Turley seems like a conservative to you and others because you’re so ‘round the bend your perspectives are massively warped.

Learn to argue. Learn what’s a fact. Learn to stop leaning on intellectual crutches.

Get better.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.