Germany: The Leading Censor in the EU

The Role of X in the EU's Censorship

X, now known as a “free speech platform,” shares details about its users with the governments of EU member states. This isn't just related to illegal speech, but also extends to legal speech that is considered “harmful.” This is a key aspect of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires platforms to take action against not just illegal content, but also potentially harmful content such as “disinformation.” According to X’s latest “Transparency Report” to the EU on its “content moderation” efforts, nearly 90% of requests for information on the sources of supposedly “illegal or harmful speech” came from Germany alone.

Germany's Dominance in Reporting "Illegal or Harmful Speech"

X also acts against posts or accounts for “illegal or harmful speech" reported by EU member states or the European Commission. This action can involve deletion or geo-blocking of content, or it can involve various forms of “visibility filtering” or restricting engagement. Germany leads in this aspect as well, having submitted 42% of all the reports to X on “illegal or harmful speech” and almost half of the reports from member states. Germany submitted nearly twice as many reports as any other member state and over ten times more reports than comparably-sized Italy. The European Commission submitted around 15% of the reports.

Germany's Influence on "Negative Effects on Civic Discourse or Elections"

Germany also submitted the most reports on content causing “negative effects on civic discourse or elections,” another category of speech that is not necessarily illegal but is considered “harmful” enough under the DSA regime to require suppression. Germany submitted well over half of all such reports and over 60% of the reports from member states.

English-Language Content and the EU's Jurisdiction

Interestingly, the majority of these reports and the related “enforcement actions” likely involve English-language content. This is inferred from the fact that nearly 90% of X’s “content moderation team” are English speakers. However, the question arises as to why Germany or the EU should have any jurisdiction over English-language discourse, given that Germans are not typically native English speakers and only 1.5% of the total EU population speaks English as their first language.

Elon Musk's "Free Speech Platform" and Germany's Censorship Role

From X’s “Transparency Report,” it is clear that Elon Musk’s “free speech platform” is not truly free and is actually dedicating significant resources to comply with the EU’s censorship regime. Furthermore, Germany stands out as the EU’s — and possibly the world’s — undisputed, online censorship champion.

Enforcement Actions and the EU's Case Against X

During the reporting period of just over three months, X took 226,350 “enforcement actions” in response to reports from EU member states or the EU Commission. This doesn't include the “enforcement actions” taken by X proactively in line with its own DSA-compatible terms of service and rules.

The EU's Case Against X and the Impact on Free Speech

Despite the publicized dispute between Elon Musk and Thierry Breton and the well-known “proceedings” against X, the EU’s case against X currently has nothing to do with insufficient “content moderation” or censorship. Instead, it concerns other, more complex aspects of the DSA. The original proceedings against X did involve “content moderation” and could have had a positive impact on freedom of speech. However, this aspect has been dropped from the investigation.

Bottom Line

Ultimately, it is clear that no online platform of any size can operate in the EU market and be a “free speech platform.” The DSA makes this impossible. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think this is a fair approach to maintaining online discourse, or does it infringe on freedom of speech? Share this article with your friends and let's hear their opinions too. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.