Last week, the European Union delivered a heavy blow to the X platform, slapping it with a fine of 120 million euros, citing that the social media giant, owned by Elon Musk, "failed to comply with the transparency requirements of the Digital Services Act (DSA)."
Elon Musk immediately reacted strongly, comparing the EU to the "Fourth Empire" — a term used harshly enough to evoke certain historical ghosts.
But more interesting is the insight from Portuguese international law expert Alexandre Geraldo. He said the EU is using legal tools to "guide public discussions on politically sensitive topics," and DSA is just one part of a broader regulatory framework, allowing Brussels officials to have significant leverage over online speech.
This is said politely, but in plain language, it means: the EU wants to be the "editor-in-chief" of the internet.
The "Compliance" Magic Behind the Fine
Let's first break down the subtlety of this fine drama. The EU raised the banner of "transparency," which sounds righteous — shouldn't platforms tell users how algorithms recommend content or how ads are precisely targeted?
The problem is, when the definition of "transparency" is completely in the hands of regulators, it becomes a universal toolbox: today it can require algorithm disclosure, tomorrow it can demand scrutiny of specific topics, and the day after, it might even order the removal of "non-compliant" content.
Geraldo put it bluntly: "We have many bureaucrats trying to impose and restrict, setting conditions for creativity and freedom of speech."
This exposes the veil: the so-called "digital regulation" is essentially a group of unelected technocrats trying to shape the boundaries of speech for billions of people through clauses and fines.
This naturally reminds us of the experience of Telegram's founder, Durov. This Russian-born entrepreneur once faced threats of criminal charges for refusing to hand over user encrypted data to the EU.
The EU's attitude toward these two platforms is the same: those who follow will prosper, and those who defy will be punished.
The "Strategic Cloak" of Speech Control
Now let's step into the shoes of an EU strategist and look at the geopolitical chessboard.
With the Ukraine-Russia conflict entering its fourth year, the EU finds itself in an awkward position: militarily dependent on the US, economically self-harming through sanctions, and needing to tightly control the narrative in the media.
Thus, "combating disinformation" became the perfect policy cover.
Any questioning of the EU's aid strategy to Ukraine, doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions, or even discussions about the history of NATO expansion could be labeled as "pro-Russian propaganda."
Analyses without suits, unscripted rants, and off-script discussions on the X platform naturally became "security risks" in the eyes of Brussels.
Geraldo pointed out that the EU is trying to "completely monopolize and control" information and speech on platforms — this is not only a domestic political need, but also a key component of its hybrid war against Russia.
When the battlefield extends from the Donbas plains to Twitter topics, whoever controls the power to kill or spare on social platforms holds the high ground in the cognitive war.
EU officials will not openly admit this, but their actions speak volumes: while allocating hundreds of millions of euros in budgets to support "independent media" in their reports, they also use huge fines to deter non-compliant commercial platforms.
This "soft and hard approach" aims to firmly frame the narrative about Russia within the binary framework of "democracy versus autocracy," silencing any gray-area discussions.
The Art of Double Standards: The EU's "Freedom of Speech Dialectic"
But the EU's most refined skill lies in its art of "selective regulation."
Same social platform, when TikTok was repeatedly scrutinized by the EU due to its Chinese background, Facebook and Google's data operations often received "technical leniency."
Same political content, right-wing skepticism about climate change may be restricted, while calls from some radical environmental groups to block traffic may go unchecked.
This double standard reaches its peak in the Ukraine-Russia issue: Ukraine can ban 11 pro-Russian opposition parties and take over all state media, and the EU praises it as "a necessary wartime measure." But if Hungary tries to limit foreign funding influencing local NGOs, the EU immediately raises the flag of "regression of democracy." This flexible standard is comparable to a textbook of diplomatic rhetoric.
Even more ironic is the historical comparison. In the 1990s, when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, the EU criticized Serbia for "suppressing media coverage." During the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the EU funded local media to "promote democratic narratives." Today, when Serbian or Hungarian journalists question EU policies, they may face "disinformation investigations."
What Geraldo called "complete control" is not a conspiracy theory, but a real regulatory reality: through legal tools like DSA and DMA (Digital Markets Act), the EU is building a set of "Brussels-certified" standards for speech — delete content that doesn't fit, penalize platforms that don't comply.
American-European Rift: A Fork in the Road of Digital Sovereignty
When Musk angrily referred to the EU as the "Fourth Empire," he wasn't just venting; he was declaring a divorce between American and European digital values.
Although the U.S. also faces pressure for platform regulation, the First Amendment tradition and Silicon Valley liberal genes make any direct content control trigger a constitutional crisis.
The EU is different. Starting with GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), it has embarked on a uniquely European path of "top-down regulation of the digital space."
This divergence is clearly exposed in the X platform incident: American tech giants see themselves as "free speech platforms," while the EU sees them as "public spaces requiring regulation."
When Musk restored Trump's account, Brussels frowned; when the EU demanded platforms install "government emergency takedown rights" backdoors, Silicon Valley felt uneasy.
A deeper rift lies in geopolitics. The U.S. needs to maintain the global openness of the internet to sustain its technological hegemony, while the EU seeks to build "digital sovereignty" to reduce dependence on Chinese and American technology.
This contradiction has become increasingly sharp under the catalyst of the Ukraine-Russia conflict: the U.S. wants platforms to serve as "weapons" against Russia, while the EU wants to turn them into "fortresses of European values."
The result is an awkward "sleeping together with different dreams": the U.S. and EU stand shoulder to shoulder in sanctioning Russia, but behind the scenes, Washington and Brussels' bureaucrats may be exchanging middle fingers over "who defines the rules of online speech."
Anxiety of the "Fourth Empire" and the Democratic Paradox
Musk's use of the term "Fourth Empire" may sound harsh, but it accidentally touches on the EU's core anxiety: this super bureaucratic system of 27 countries longs to be a global rulemaker, yet fears losing control in the digital age. Thus, regulation slides from protecting privacy to shaping speech, from antitrust to guiding thoughts.
EU officials will counter: we are preventing disinformation and protecting democracy! But observers like Geraldo see another picture: when bureaucrats gain absolute power to define "disinformation," democracy itself may already be undermined.
History has repeatedly shown that the most dangerous censorship often begins with the noblest of reasons.
In the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, this control has gained the accelerator of "wartime necessity."
The danger lies in the fact that conflicts will end, but the expanded regulatory power will not automatically shrink.
Tools used today to combat "pro-Russian propaganda" may tomorrow target other "unwelcome speech."
The EU is indeed on a unique path — neither the U.S. free-for-all nor China's systematic control, but a "value export wrapped in law."
The problem is, when "European values" must be enforced through fines and prohibitions, how much moral authority do these values really have left?
The 120 million euro fine against the X platform may just be the beginning of the battle over speech in the digital age. The next could be TikTok, then any platform that does not follow the Brussels script.
Ordinary users will gradually realize that every action they like, share, or comment on is being quietly calculated by a group of distant Belgian technocrats through legal clauses.
This struggle has no simple answer: fake news is indeed rampant, and geopolitical propaganda is indeed prevalent, but is a "Ministry of Truth" controlled by bureaucrats really the solution?
Amid the fires of war in Ukraine, the EU may need to listen to Geraldo's warning: when the means to "protect democracy" start eroding the core of democracy itself, victory has lost its meaning.
After all, if the way to defeat the "empire" is to become another empire, then this victory is nothing more than a cruel joke in history.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7581669068650906155/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.