Whoa, the EU just slapped a major platform with a €120M penalty over the Digital Services Act. Their excuse? Something about transparency and giving researchers better data access. But here's the real question—is this actually about accountability, or are we watching regulators weaponize compliance to control the narrative? Because from where I'm standing, this looks less like enforcement and more like a power play against open discourse.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
OfflineNewbie
· 12-06 02:44
At it again? The power struggle under the guise of regulation—same old routine.
View OriginalReply0
zkNoob
· 12-05 15:49
A €120 million fine sounds harsh, but honestly, isn't it just regulators putting on a show? They call it "transparency" on the surface, but in reality, it's just about tightening the noose.
View OriginalReply0
ChainWallflower
· 12-05 15:48
Well... to put it bluntly, it's just nitpicking to fine people. Data access rights or whatever—it just sounds ridiculous.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsDetective
· 12-05 15:39
A €120 million fine sounds intimidating, but if you think about it, isn't this just disguised censorship?
---
Honestly, what regulators really want isn't transparency—they just want to control the public discourse.
---
Here we go again, using "data access" as an excuse to expand their power. The EU sure is good at this.
---
These people are using compliance as a weapon. I've seen right through them.
---
Transparency? What a joke. This is blatant speech control.
---
The fines keep getting bigger, and the motive is becoming more obvious.
---
So now regulators are getting into the game of controlling the narrative too? Not surprised.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketMonk
· 12-05 15:39
A €120 million fine, to put it plainly, is just power flexing its muscles. Transparency, data access—it all sounds so righteous, but enforcement and control are often separated by only a thin veil.
---
Same old trick in another cycle: regulation turns into a weapon, accountability becomes a facade. We've seen it countless times.
---
What's really interesting is how they're still trying to act so benevolent. Data access rights... ha.
---
The nature of power never truly changes, it just wears the mask of "compliance." This EU move isn't cutting down platforms—it's redefining the boundaries of discourse.
---
History repeats itself, folks—the only thing that changes is the cast.
---
€120 million for a "regulation with teeth" persona—does the EU really think that's a good deal?
---
Transparency? Data access? What I care more about is: who regulates the regulators?
---
In the end, it's still the law of the jungle, just dressed up in legal garb. Wake up.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleMistaker
· 12-05 15:32
€120 million? This guy really treats the fine as a joke, haha
---
Transparency? Feels like the EU itself is the least transparent
---
Yet another "it's for your own good" regulatory story—I don't buy it
---
Basically, they just want to control what platforms can say. I've seen through this trick long ago
---
Data access rights... sounds so grand, but in reality?
---
It's always the same: they talk about accountability first, but it all turns into a power game
---
The EU's tactics are something else—calling fines enforcement and reviews transparency. Impressive
---
Data access for researchers has become a disguised excuse for censorship?
---
Trying to buy discourse power with €120 million? Whether that's a good deal depends on who's doing the math
---
Regulators are best at packaging things, with all their slick rhetoric
Whoa, the EU just slapped a major platform with a €120M penalty over the Digital Services Act. Their excuse? Something about transparency and giving researchers better data access. But here's the real question—is this actually about accountability, or are we watching regulators weaponize compliance to control the narrative? Because from where I'm standing, this looks less like enforcement and more like a power play against open discourse.