Digital Crackdown On Free Speech
Hello and welcome back beautiful soul family. How is everyone doing? Man, these people will not stop trying to take our freedom of speech away from us. If they can't come after us in America, then they go through a back door. This Digital Services Act coming out of Europe is a very devious and conniving method to control American free speech.
Have you looked into this thing? It is being touted as a way to safeguard online behavior, as well as control child pornography which I am perfectly fine with with them stopping. The problem is with these people they like to use the act of a good deed to hide devious tendencies in between the lines. I have read through this document and it is not at all what it seems. They know most will not take the time to read this long document so most of the devious agenda will be unknown.
The first article I came to that has open ended wording and capabilities is Section 1 Article 91. “In times of crisis, there might be a need for certain specific measures to be taken urgently by providers of very large online platforms, in addition to measures they would be taking in view of their other obligations under this Regulation. In that regard, a crisis should be considered to occur when extraordinary circumstances occur that can lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or significant parts thereof. Such crises could result from armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, including emerging conflicts or acts of terrorism, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as from pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health. The Commission should be able to require, upon recommendation by the European Board for Digital Services (‘the Board’), providers of very large online platforms and providers of very large search engines to initiate a crisis response as a matter of urgency. Measures that those providers may identify and consider applying may include, for example, adapting content moderation processes and increasing the resources dedicated to content moderation, adapting terms and conditions, relevant algorithmic systems and advertising systems, further intensifying cooperation with trusted flaggers, taking awareness-raising measures and promoting trusted information and adapting the design of their online interfaces. The necessary requirements should be provided for to ensure that such measures are taken within a very short time frame and that the crisis response mechanism is only used where, and to the extent that, this is strictly necessary and any measures taken under this mechanism are effective and proportionate, taking due account of the rights and legitimate interests of all parties concerned. The use of the mechanism should be without prejudice to the other provisions of this Regulation, such as those on risk assessments and mitigation measures and the enforcement thereof and those on crisis protocols.”
Basically the premise of this word salad is in a time of “crisis” they can force online platforms and search engines to abide by whatever protocol they see fit. This means that whatever narrative they want the people to hear will be the only one allowed to be shared. Canada has already done this, and a Saudi man was just sentenced to death for comments on X and activity on You Tube.
Anyone that goes against this narrative will be facing “punishments and fines” which we will get into in a little bit. Also, they are the ones that can define what the “crisis” is. Did you notice how they used “Pandemic” in this article? As in the “next one” hmmm, very curious indeed.
Now you may be thinking to yourself, “this is coming from the EU, it doesn’t affect America or anywhere else”. Well, they have that covered in a way where any of the countries they do business with are legally entwined in this submission contract.
Section 1 Article 108 is an interesting piece “In addition to the crisis response mechanism for very large online platforms and very large online search engines, the Commission may initiate the drawing up of voluntary crisis protocols to coordinate a rapid, collective and cross-border response in the online environment. Such can be the case, for example, where online platforms are misused for the rapid spread of illegal content or disinformation or where the need arises for rapid dissemination of reliable information. In light of the important role of very large online platforms in disseminating information in our societies and across borders, providers of such platforms should be encouraged in drawing up and applying specific crisis protocols.” It goes on to say these measures should only be used for a short time, but we all know that once something has been used for power, it never goes away such as The Patriot Act and the good old temporary 1% income tax.
Article 118 is a lovely addition to spread the power of this cross borders. “In order to ensure effective enforcement of the obligations laid down in this Regulation, individuals or representative organizations should be able to lodge any complaint related to compliance with those obligations with the Digital Services Coordinator in the territory where they received the service, without prejudice to this Regulation’s rules on allocation of competences and to the applicable rules on handling of complaints in accordance with national principles of good administration. Complaints could provide a faithful overview of concerns related to a particular intermediary service provider’s compliance and could also inform the Digital Services Coordinator of any more cross-cutting issues. The Digital Services Coordinator should involve other national competent authorities as well as the Digital Services Coordinator of another Member State, and in particular the one of the Member State where the provider of intermediary services concerned is established, if the issue requires cross-border cooperation.”
If you want to investigate this further, I encourage you to look at Section 1 Articles 103, 131-133, and 140.
A quick run through of non-compliance penalties include: A restriction of access for a period of 4 weeks with the ability of the Digital Service Coordinator to extend in 4wk increments.
If the provider does not comply, example (X formally known as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok etc) (Google, Duck Duck Go, Bing) A penalty of 6% of annual worldwide turnover of provider from preceding financial year for failure to comply with obligation.
1% for incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information, failure to reply or rectify, failure to submit to an inspection.
There is so much hidden authority in this document. Check out Section 3 Articles 61-63 as well as article 69 subsection E which discusses the power to seal the premises of offender. Article 72 discusses monitoring. Article 76 discusses periodic payments to assure compliance of 5% for 5yrs.
I don’t see the current administration not utilizing this to control free speech so everything that is spoken in this legally binding document will be making its way here soon. I hope that this will not affect Substack and the freedom of speech we have to write here. Time will tell.
They are also trying to implement something similar in the US called KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act). Parliament has already passed the DSA. When the King of England signs their act into law, many other nations will more than likely follow suit. UK is going to have to have a digital ID to do online activity on any website or app. WhatsApp is already discussing leaving the UK to protect app user privacy. This is getting interesting family. Just thought I would give you a heads up while everyone is distracted with Russell Brand and all the other minutiae.
I love you all. We are Empathy. We are Compassion. We are Honesty. We are Grateful. We are Forgiveness. We are Love.
Contributing Sources:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409