EU Tech Commissioner Henna Virkkunen says that far more online content is being removed in the EU under the T&Cs of US platforms than as a result of the DSA
“Often in the US, platforms have more strict rules with content,” Virkkunen said. — Based on facts, either observed …
Context & Ripple Effects
The DSA’s rollout required major platforms to give users an option to avoid profiling-based recommendations, establishing a concrete EU rulebook for platform governance. Virkkunen’s comments distinguish that statutory framework from the broader moderation decisions platforms make under their own terms. The DSA’s recommendation-choice requirement is therefore an important baseline for judging claims that EU law is the main driver of removals.
The remarks also extend the Commission’s rebuttal of claims that European rules themselves institutionalize censorship. They arrive as Virkkunen has argued that the EU can adjust its regulatory approach to support AI investment without doing so at the behest of US political or Big Tech pressure. Her earlier case for a regulation reset makes the distinction between enforcement and voluntary platform policy more consequential.
First-order effects
- The Commission gains a clearer public argument that content removal on US platforms should not automatically be attributed to the DSA; platform terms remain the stated primary mechanism.
- US platforms operating in the EU face sharper scrutiny over how they separate removals made under their own rules from actions taken to meet legal obligations.
Second-order effects
- The censorship debate shifts toward evidence about moderation decisions and their legal basis, rather than treating overall removal volumes as a direct measure of DSA enforcement.
- Researchers, civil-society groups and policymakers have a stronger incentive to seek comparable transparency on platform-rule enforcement, alongside the DSA’s existing platform-governance requirements.
Third-order effects
- If this attribution becomes standard, EU platform regulation may be assessed less by aggregate takedowns and more by whether platforms can document the boundary between private governance and legal compliance.
- The broader contest over platform accountability could increasingly center on transparency and auditability of moderation systems, not only on the substantive rules governing content.
The trend: This is part of a broader shift from debating whether platforms moderate too much toward establishing who is responsible for particular moderation decisions and how that responsibility can be verified.