It began as an audacious pledge: unrestricted freedom of speech. Elon Musk presented Twitter’s acquisition as a rescue effort and a philosophical shift. However, the platform’s functionality and its relationship with regulators underwent a significant adjustment shortly after the name was changed to X.
The Digital Services Act, a comprehensive regulation in Europe that targets harmful and illegal digital information, has now been the subject of formal proceedings by the European Commission. Claims that X sold API access to organizations possibly engaged in political disinformation are at the center of the case. Many worry that this access would have made it possible for focused disinformation campaigns to be launched before important elections.
Key Details – Regulatory Scrutiny of X (formerly Twitter)
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Platform Name | X (formerly Twitter) |
| Owner | Elon Musk |
| Investigating Bodies | European Commission, U.S. Federal Agencies (per reports) |
| Core Concern | Sale of API access tied to disinformation and political misuse |
| Legal Basis (Europe) | Digital Services Act (DSA), up to $1B+ potential fines |
| Current Status | Formal proceedings underway in EU; U.S. review ongoing |
| Response from X | Denial of wrongdoing; claims of political censorship |
| Potential Repercussions | Feature changes, reputational damage, multi-platform financial exposure |
| Credible Source |
The accusations go beyond discussions of free speech. The method X has commercialized verification is of special interest to European politicians. Regulators have referred to the sale of checkmarks, which was made shortly after Musk’s takeover, as “deceptive” since they feel it makes it harder to distinguish between real accounts and impersonators.
Four people with knowledge of the situation disclosed in recent weeks that X would be subject to fines of more than $1 billion. The DSA allows for penalties of up to 6% of worldwide revenue. Additionally, since Musk owns X privately, several European regulators are debating whether other Musk-led businesses, including as SpaceX, might be included in the total income base for calculating a fine. If implemented, the prospect would create a regulatory precedent never seen before.
Federal agencies in the United States are silently watching in the meantime. Internal sources indicate that API transactions, particularly those involving politically sensitive data, may soon come under scrutiny, even though no public inquiry has been declared. Platform regulation has been a gradual process in the US, but it might pick up speed in the run-up to elections. Some contend that inaction might make digital anarchy appear unavoidable rather than avoidable.
Musk has encountered strong opposition to the pushback. Musk bluntly declared on X that “the DSA is misinformation” in response to reports that the European Commission considered verification sales to be a violation of the DSA. In a more measured approach, his legal team referred to the regulatory action as “an unprecedented act of political censorship.” X insists that it has fully complied and that user safety is still its top priority.
Reduced oversight and dismantled moderation teams, however, paint a different picture. Reports of hate speech have sharply increased after the company’s internal reorganization, particularly in areas where English is not the primary language. Verified disinformation has also significantly increased, particularly in relation to elections and vaccines.
It’s possible that X unintentionally created a pathway for coordinated manipulation by destroying important infrastructure for safety and trust. Speaking anonymously, a former engineer claimed that the algorithms were “never designed to handle bad actors with a budget.” The barriers, which were already brittle, completely fell apart when API access started to be paid for.
These inquiries come as Musk publicly supports former President Donald Trump. According to reports, the two have worked together on the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a project aimed at streamlining government bureaucracy. Although it is not against the law, the closeness of that relationship to platform policy presents significant moral dilemmas.
That context is important to regulators. A platform that amplifies politics cannot afford to be irresponsible when it comes to identity verification, visibility, or access. The possibility of upending democracy becomes all too real if verified accounts can be bought and API tools can be rented without adequate verification.
A leaked screenshot of a political botnet with blue checkmarks on it caused me to pause. It was uncannily effective, like to witnessing credibility being rented out hourly. It appears that European regulators are resolved to take decisive action. The Times claims that their objective is deterrence as well as punishment. Certain features, such as paid verification and the hierarchy of API tiers, might have to be changed or eliminated by X. These modifications would affect Musk’s overall ideological push for platform decentralization as well as his sources of income.
This is ironic. Musk, who has long supported user freedom and open source, is suddenly subject to limitations as a direct result of those liberties—at least when they are marketed as goods. The distinction between opportunism and openness has become more hazy.
X could yet reinterpret its function in digital infrastructure by making smart adjustments. It might continue to be successful and well-respected by fostering trust. However, the dominant approach to date has been opposition rather than transformation.
The ramifications extend beyond a single business. In the event that enforcement steps are taken, this would be the first significant use of the DSA against a well-known tech company worldwide. This communicates to other platforms that scale is no longer a defense. Unfiltered engagement-based business models might need to change quickly to avoid regulatory collapse.
However, there is a chance here. Platforms that anticipate monitoring rather than fight it could spearhead a wonderfully efficient and surprisingly cost-effective shift toward transparency. Ethical design and technological innovation don’t have to conflict. Simply said, they aren’t often pursued together.
The financial consequences can be insignificant compared to the damage to X’s reputation if he decides to engage in conflict. However, if it accepts change, even if it does so reluctantly, it may show that digital platforms may continue to be free while being very explicit about what they permit, encourage, or make money from.
