Europe's DSA and the New Contours of Online Freedom
The DSA marks a shift in digital governance. As platforms adjust and states assert control, the question becomes: what kind of internet are we building?
In recent years, the European Union has begun redrawing the boundaries of the digital world. Through legislative instruments like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU is no longer just reacting to Silicon Valley’s innovations, but actively shaping the terrain in which those innovations unfold.
As someone working in digital strategy, I’ve committed to learning to live with these frameworks—not blindly, but with informed scrutiny.
This article is part of that journey: a close look at the DSA and its ripple effects, especially in light of Meta's recent decision to suspend political recommendations in Europe, and the contrasting developments across the Channel with the UK's Online Safety Act.
The DSA: From Compliance to Structure
The DSA is more than a regulatory checklist. It marks an infrastructural shift: from a permissive digital frontier to one where values like transparency, accountability, and user rights are embedded in the design of platforms.
It introduces graduated responsibilities, based on a platform's size and influence, and creates a legal architecture to mitigate systemic risks—including disinformation, algorithmic bias, and threats to democratic processes.
What stands out in the DSA is its attempt to restore a sense of public sovereignty over the digital commons. The obligations placed on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Search Engines are significant. But with that weight comes a certain pushback.
Meta’s response, to remove political content from algorithmic recommendation in the EU, feels less like compliance and more like strategic withdrawal. If platforms cannot guarantee transparency or neutrality in political amplification, they may choose silence instead.
Meta's Retreat: A DSA Case Study
Meta’s announcement to stop recommending political content in Europe is instructive. It exposes the fault lines between platform logic and democratic accountability.
Under the DSA, VLOPs must identify and mitigate systemic risks. Political content, especially during election cycles, is inherently risky: it can trigger legal scrutiny, demand algorithmic disclosure, and expose moderation biases.
Rather than open that box, Meta has quietly closed it. Political speech isn’t banned, but it is no longer promoted. What seems like a neutral act of moderation is, in fact, a powerful editorial decision. The DSA did not call for this, but it made the terrain uncertain enough that avoidance became a rational business response.
Looking Across the Channel: The UK’s Online Safety Act
While the EU is building its digital rulebook on rights and responsibilities, the UK has taken a different path. The Online Safety Act (OSA) focuses not on platform accountability but on end-user protections. In doing so, it grants regulators the power to require content removal, enforce age verification, and potentially mandate surveillance backdoors in encrypted services.
If the DSA nudges platforms to take responsibility for systemic effects, the OSA leans toward state-centric control. Where the DSA asks, "How does this affect the public sphere?", the OSA asks, "What content must be stopped?" The former seeks structural correction; the latter, direct intervention.
Rob Hoeijmakers
Towards a Digital Sovereignty of Practice
My commitment is to understand and work with these new frameworks, but never uncritically. That means tracing their philosophical roots, watching their real-world effects, and engaging in places where the rules are made, including Brussels.
I see these Acts not as neutral technical adjustments, but as cultural instruments: they shape what kind of digital society we are becoming.
We are only beginning to see the consequences. Whether through Meta’s retreat or the UK’s regulatory assertiveness, the contours of online freedom are shifting. The question isn’t only what platforms must do, but what we, as citizens and professionals, are willing to demand, question, and build.
Rob Hoeijmakers
My current Stance
The Digital Services Act is not the end of the conversation—it’s the beginning of a new mode of engagement. For those of us committed to digital work in Europe, this means more than compliance. It means understanding the political grammar of the internet, watching how power flows through code and regulation, and insisting on a digital commons worth protecting.
Rob Hoeijmakers
Rob Hoeijmakers
Rob Hoeijmakers