Original article (in Bosnian) was published on 10/04/2026; Author: Mladen Lakić
What are the claims?
The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act (DSA) to carry out censorship in the online space.
What are the facts?
The Digital Services Act (DSA) was adopted to improve the safety of the online environment for consumers and businesses, with clearly defined obligations and rules that protect freedom of expression.
On March 3, 2026, the Nulta tačka news outlet published an article about a fine imposed on platform X (formerly Twitter) for violating the rules of the European Digital Services Act (DSA), as well as the appeal filed by the platform. The article was published under the following headline:
The European Commission Wants to Censor Free Speech; X Is the Only Thing Standing in Its Way
The article describes X as a platform “fighting for the right of citizens around the world to freely express their views” online, while the Digital Services Act is presented as a tool for carrying out censorship.
Last week, Musk’s platform X filed a legal challenge against the $140 million fine imposed by the European Commission last December under the Digital Services Act (DSA), an EU law that enables censorship.
It is also claimed that X was fined because it refused to carry out censorship.
Since Elon Musk bought X and turned it into a free speech platform, Brussels has clearly shown hostility toward the platform. Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton warned in 2023: “You can run, but you can’t hide… fighting disinformation will be a legal obligation under the DSA. Our teams will be ready for enforcement.” Former Commission Vice-President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová added: “Twitter attracts a lot of attention and its compliance with EU law will be strictly monitored.”
That is why X received the first fine under the DSA in December. The message is clear: any platform that refuses censorship will face consequences.
The article states that the DSA contains regulations on things such as disinformation and hate speech that were not voted on in parliament.
Additional codes of conduct regulate “disinformation”, “hate speech”, and the protection of minors, with 153 pages of additional rules that were never voted on.
It is also claimed that the DSA is a tool applied globally, that is, that it serves as a means of global censorship allegedly carried out by the European Commission (EC).
The vague and broad terms of the law are ideal tools for the Commission to censor unwanted views, and the DSA applies globally, not only in Europe.
A House Judiciary Committee study shows enormous pressure on major tech platforms to apply DSA censorship standards globally, which means that the EU is censoring speech around the world.
What is the Digital Services Act and what is its purpose?
The Nulta tačka article cites Zero Hedge as its source, a highly right-wing platform publishing unreliable content and where conspiracy theories have been shared (1, 2). The article published on that website was republished from Real Clear Politics, which is also a right-wing platform that publishes content in the field of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories (link).
The Digital Services Act (DSA), as explained on the European Commission’s website dedicated to the European Union’s (EU) digital strategy, aims to create a safer online environment for consumers and businesses in the EU. After the European Parliament (EP), the Council of the EU adopted it in October 2022. It is a set of rules intended to ensure a safer digital space for users, as well as a level playing field for businesses operating in the EU.
The DSA reduces the risks of illegal and harmful content by introducing the obligation to remove illegal content in a timely manner after it is reported, establishing transparent moderation procedures, and enabling users to appeal platform decisions. This act requires platforms to provide greater transparency regarding algorithms and advertising, including a ban on targeted advertising based on sensitive data and special protection for minors. Very large online platforms and search engines are subject to additional obligations, such as assessing and mitigating systemic risks, including risks related to the spread of disinformation and information manipulation.
The DSA applies to a broad range of digital intermediaries that offer services to users in the EU, regardless of where they are based. This includes internet access providers, hosting services, online platforms such as social networks and marketplaces, as well as very large platforms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and TikTok.
Censorship is “the control and prohibition of the flow of informational, cultural and artistic content carried out by a governing body for the presumed benefit of a community or society,” according to the Croatian Encyclopedia. Contrary to the claims made in the Nulta tačka article, the purpose of the DSA is not censorship. Rather, the act seeks to prevent illegal and harmful activities in the online space, as well as the spread of disinformation. In doing so, it does not deal with individual pieces of content, but prescribes mechanisms of platform accountability in cases involving the spread of illegal and harmful content. The DSA also enables complaints and appeals in certain procedures, which is not possible in a system of censorship.
Moreover, the fact that this is not a regulation introducing censorship is also shown by the answer to the question “How will you ensure a fair balance with fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression?”, one of the questions and answers about the DSA available on the EC’s official website. As explained in the answer, the DSA protects freedom of expression, including media freedom and pluralism. Three examples are provided to demonstrate this. The first is the complaint mechanism for appealing moderation decisions. In other words, there is a system in which users can appeal to the platform. Second, the DSA requires platforms to be transparent in content moderation, meaning that decisions must be made in a completely clear manner. The third example concerns addressing bias in recommender algorithms, where the DSA introduces new tools for assessing the recommendations that algorithms provide to platforms in order to create a fairer online experience.
Contrary to the claims made in the Nulta tačka article, the DSA does not contain “unvoted codes of conduct” relating to issues such as disinformation or hate speech on platforms. The EU’s earlier Code of Practice on Disinformation, now known as the Code of Conduct, has been integrated into the broader EU regulatory framework, particularly through its connection with the DSA. It is a voluntary and structured framework for cooperation between platforms, the advertising industry, and other actors. It was established in 2018 and significantly strengthened in 2022. Its purpose is to counter the spread of disinformation through common standards and greater transparency and accountability of digital services. Once it became linked to the DSA, it acquired elements of co-regulation.
The Code contains dozens of commitments and specific measures that signatories have pledged to implement. Key areas include the demonetization of disinformation, that is, preventing revenue from such content, transparency of political advertising, and the fight against manipulative practices such as bots, fake accounts, and deepfake content. A particular focus is placed on cooperation with researchers and fact-checkers, who should be given greater access to platform data, as well as on establishing systems for monitoring performance through reporting and indicators.
The Code applies to large online platforms, advertisers, technology companies, and civil society organizations operating in the EU. Its purpose is to reduce the impact of disinformation on democracy, public health, and security, while preserving freedom of expression. However, it is not part of the DSA and was not voted on in the European Parliament. As already stated, it is a voluntary framework for cooperation agreed to by the platforms as well, and therefore it did not need to be adopted through a vote.
Neither the DSA nor the Code contains provisions envisaging “censorship”, as claimed in the analyzed article. Rather, they regulate what a platform must provide in relation to content that is harmful or illegal.
How did platform X violate the DSA?
The European Commission fined platform X €120 million in December 2025 for violating transparency obligations under the DSA. It was found that the use of the “blue checkmark” for verified accounts on the platform misleads users, because anyone can pay to obtain verified status without the company actually verifying who is behind the account, making it more difficult for users to assess the authenticity of accounts and content, the EC stated in its announcement about the fine. The EC also said that X’s advertising repository does not meet the DSA’s requirements regarding transparency and accessibility, and that the platform was found to have denied researchers access to public data.
The platform was given 60 working days to inform the EC about the steps it would take regarding the established violation related to paid blue checkmarks, and 90 days for the other violations. In February 2026, the company announced on its X account that it had filed an appeal against this decision.
The claim that the EC is using the DSA to “censor around the world” is inaccurate and manipulative in relation to how the DSA functions. Formally, the DSA is an EU legal regulation and applies within the EU single market. However, Article 2(1) clearly defines that the DSA “applies to intermediary services offered to recipients of the service that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment of the providers of those intermediary services”. Therefore, the DSA is indeed an EU legal regulation, but it also applies to those providing their services within that area, regardless of where they are headquartered (in the case of platform X, the United States of America).
According to the facts presented above, we rate the claim that the EC is carrying out censorship through the DSA as fake news. This is an act that enables the creation of a safer online environment, with clearly defined obligations and regulations that protect freedom of expression.
We also assess the claim that platform X was fined because Elon Musk refuses to carry out censorship as fake news, because the fine was imposed for violations of transparency obligations under the DSA.The implication that the DSA contains parts that were not voted on in the European Parliament is rated as manipulation of facts. It is true that the DSA is linked to the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, but this voluntary code is not part of the Act. We give the same assessment to the claim that the DSA applies globally. The DSA is an EU act, but all platforms, regardless of where they are headquartered, must comply with it if they operate in the EU.
