These civil servants are effectively trying to bypass the US court. These civil servants yield considerable power what comes to the censorship, and the Whitehouse really really hates the idea that the EU can decide, not them, what is allowed. This will send a message that the US stands behind its companies and is not push around. If you want to push non-domestic enforcement, you need to be willing to stand behind the principles and be publicly ready to defend the censorship rulings you set forward.

▲

pjc50 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Whitehouse really really hates the idea that the EU can decide, not them, what is allowed

.. in the Netherlands. Where the EU and the Dutch government get to decide what happens. That's what national sovereignty means.

	▲	skippyboxedhero 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I would read the links in the article. The problem is that social media companies worked with civil servants in European countries to remove posts being made people outside Europe. This also happened in the UK where there were parts of the government that were able to make requests directly to social media companies to remove posts on their platform, regardless of where the poster was from. For obvious reasons, the linked article does not explain that fully. It is kind of weird to see the turnaround on here from people who complain about the US government being too powerful but, for some reason, are quite okay with an unelected EU bureaucrat being able to govern their internet usage. There are no principles at play here.