How the EU’s Online Rulebook Could Export Censorship Worldwide

A quiet Brussels review has turned into a loud global fight over who decides what stays online. This week, 113 free-speech specialists—lawyers, academics, former officials and journalists—urged the European Commission to rethink how it enforces the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Their open letter says the law’s broad definition of “illegal content,” combined with tough penalties, risks turning Europe’s safety rules into a worldwide censorship machine.

Here’s the core issue in plain terms: what’s “illegal” online isn’t the same across Europe. If platforms fear fines of up to 6% of their global revenue, they may apply the strictest national rule to everyone—often far beyond the EU.

A 2019 judgment by Europe’s top court adds weight: judges can order platforms to remove not only a specific post but also “identical” or “equivalent” copies, potentially worldwide. Put together, critics say, these pressures nudge companies to delete first and ask questions later.

Supporters of the DSA argue it’s about safer, more transparent platforms. And the law has bite. Since February 17, 2024, every intermediary must comply, with extra duties for very large platforms and search engines.

Enforcement has already changed behavior: TikTok pulled its “Lite Rewards” program across the EU after regulators raised child-safety concerns, and the Commission has opened formal cases into X and Meta over risk controls, ad transparency and researcher access.

EU Speech Rules Face Global Scrutiny Ahead of Key Review

The Commission’s first evaluation is due November 17, 2025, and that’s the moment the letter aims to influence. The story behind the story is who’s pushing—and why.

The letter was coordinated by ADF International, a conservative legal group, but the signers span beyond one camp and focus on process: they want the Commission to consult independent free-expression and constitutional experts and to disclose which civil-society groups are shaping the review.

Why it matters outside Europe—including in Brazil: global platforms don’t run 27 different rulebooks. If Europe’s strictest lines become the de facto global standard, lawful speech in São Paulo or Seoul can be taken down because of a dispute in Salzburg.

The EU is using regulatory muscle to set the tone for the internet. The question now is whether its November review can protect users—without shrinking the space for democratic debate everywhere else.