The DSA mandates very large online platforms and search engines to take more robust measures against illegal content and potential threats to public security. The investigation aims to scrutinize the company’s efforts in countering the dissemination of illegal content within the EU, evaluating the effectiveness of measures, such as the recently introduced “Community Notes” system, reported Reuters.
X introduced the “Community Notes” feature earlier this year, enabling users to comment on posts to identify and flag false or misleading content. This system essentially shifts fact-checking responsibilities to users, diverging from the conventional approach of relying on dedicated fact-checking teams.
The probe will also delve into various aspects of the company’s operations, including data access provided to researchers. Recent reports indicate that social media researchers have had to cancel, suspend, or modify over 100 studies related to X due to actions taken by its owner, Elon Musk, limiting access to the platform.
While emphasizing that the investigation does not imply guilt, a senior EU official stated, “The step that we are taking today does not find X guilty of an infringement, or conclude that X has actually infringed the DSA but merely states that we have significant ground to investigate these areas in detail.”
In response, X has expressed its commitment to complying with the DSA and has affirmed its cooperation with the regulatory process. In a statement issued on Monday, the company emphasized the importance of keeping the process free from political influence and ensuring adherence to the law.
“It is important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law,” X stated.
The outcome of this investigation could set a precedent for how social media platforms are held accountable under the Digital Services Act, reflecting the EU’s dedication to ensuring a secure online environment while respecting freedom of expression.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand