Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen has strongly rejected allegations that the Digital Services Act (DSA) functions as a censorship tool, instead emphasising the Act's role in empowering users to challenge content removals and safeguarding freedom of expression. In a response to a parliamentary question from MEP Erik Kaliňák (NI), Virkkunen provided concrete data illustrating platform accountability: Meta reversed nearly a third of 68 million moderation actions after appeals, and over 50% of more than 1,800 out-of-court complaints were upheld. She stressed that the DSA does not dictate which content is illegal—that remains a national competence—but mandates transparency and accountability from platforms, backed by investigations when obligations are unmet.
This clarification follows a series of recent statements by Virkkunen defending the DSA's approach. On April 17, she detailed DSA staffing and budget figures, rejecting claims of a “permanent censorship and surveillance apparatus,” and on April 16, she outlined the Commission's content moderation approach, balancing oversight and free speech. The response also echoes Virkkunen's April 15 defence of EU digital policy against US allegations of internet censorship, where she emphasised that the EU's digital governance respects free speech and aims at transparency rather than political bias.
The Kaliňák question cited a US House Judiciary Committee report accusing the European Commission of using the DSA to suppress inconvenient opinions, particularly regarding sensitive social topics before Slovak elections. Virkkunen's answer reiterates the Commission's stance that it does not interfere in individual moderation cases but acts as a watchdog ensuring platform compliance. This aligns with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's April 17 reassurance on DSA balance between online safety and free speech, which emphasised a predictable online environment safeguarding fundamental rights.
The Commission's approach favours enhancing user rights within platforms' moderation frameworks rather than extending EU regulatory powers to dictate content legality. Users gain greater protections and remedies against content removal errors, while platforms face increased transparency requirements and investigations. National authorities maintain their role in determining content legality but receive support for enforcement. The Commission signals ongoing scrutiny, with investigations opened and findings released, indicating continued enforcement activity within the DSA framework. This official stance clarifies intentions amidst scrutiny and sets expectations for regulatory follow-up in digital service oversight.
← Atlas › News › Digital & Communication