Nice motte-and-bailey. Removing CSAM is good, therefore so is removing “we need to take back our country”:

@JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August. In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world. Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime. The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.” New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal. In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online. Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one. And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public. What were they trying to hide? Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.”

https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1948730617803296910

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...

▲

vrganj an hour ago | parent [-]

If removing CSAM is good, then there is clearly a line somewhere.

The only question is "who gets to draw it"?

Why should it be foreign oligarchs and not our own democratic representatives?

To do so, ironically, constitutes "taking back our country" from autocrats abroad.

The arrogance of the House GOP trying to tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful is grating. You're not our colonial administrators. Abide by our rules or get out.

▲

like_any_other 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, it constitutes the taking of the country by the autocrats at home (or in Brussels). It is ridiculous to call them "democratic representatives" when they are trying to keep secret how they are censoring the people they rule, sorry, "represent".

It's also ridiculous to claim that censoring the very desire to reclaim one's country, is reclaiming one's country, by virtue of who is doing the secret censoring.

> Who do House Republicans think they are that they can tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful? Abide by our rules or get out.

As a European I am very grateful to the Republicans for exposing how my own supranational rulers are controlling me, something which, again, they tried to keep secret, while preaching about "democracy".

Edit as reply:

> So your definition of "taking back our country" is... Americans telling us what we can and can't do in the best interest of their owners?

They're not telling us what we can and can't do. They're telling us what our rulers are keeping secret from us.

> Should the EU actually overstep, tech companies can take it to the open, public courts

I repeated how they kept the nature of censorship secret three times. You don't get to talk about "open, public courts".

> If you don't like the DSA, vote for MEPs that are opposed.

I will. But many won't, because they are being actively deceived by the EU into how the legislation works. How democratic is it when governments lie, and people vote based on those lies? For some strange reason, none of the many misinformation watchdogs picked up on this misinformation.

	▲	vrganj 23 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So your definition of "taking back our country" is... Americans telling us what we can and can't do in the best interest of their owners? Should the EU actually overstep, tech companies can take it to the open, public courts, thanks to our actually functioning separation of powers. That is the beauty of democracy. If you don't like the DSA, vote for MEPs that are opposed. You're never going to be able to control what's going on in your country if you give away power to wannabe colonialists abroad.
	▲	31 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]