Tangle Podcast Episode Summary

Episode Title: The European Union fines X.
Date: December 10, 2025
Host: Isaac Saul

Overview

This episode delves into the European Union’s decision to fine X (formerly Twitter) €120 million ($140 million) for violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The discussion explores the details behind the fine, reactions from across the political spectrum, including US and European commentators, and Isaac Saul’s nuanced take on the international implications for free speech, tech regulation, and platform transparency.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Correction & Transparency Update [01:57–04:03]

• Isaac Saul opens by maintaining the podcast’s commitment to transparency, correcting two previous errors in their reporting—one about a US town and a verbal slip concerning US presidents.

2. News Rundown (“Quick Hits”) [04:03–05:29]

• Student Loan Plan: Trump administration reaches agreement halting US federal student loan enrollments for certain programs.
• Ghislaine Maxwell Case: DOJ granted to unseal grand jury records.
• Supreme Court Case: Review of campaign and party spending rules.
• Thai-Cambodian Border Fighting: Significant casualties reported.
• Australia’s Social Media Ban: Children under 16 now blocked from platforms like X, TikTok, Meta, and YouTube—the world’s first such national law.

3. Breakdown: What Happened with X and the EU [05:29–09:10]

• Announcement:
  • “Today. The commission has issued a fine of 120 million Euro to X for breaching the Digital Services Act. This is the first ever fine under the DSA.” – [05:29]
• Key Violations:
  • Misleading users via the Blue checkmark system: Checkmarks now available for purchase with little to no actual verification, increasing risk of impersonation and scams.
  • Inadequate ad transparency: Nonfunctional ad repository and lack of researcher access.
  • Prohibiting effective data access for researchers.
• Elon Musk’s Response:
  • Musk labeled the EU’s post about the fine "bullshit".
  • On X: “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries so that governments can better represent their people.” – Paraphrased from X post.
• US Political Reactions:
  • Marco Rubio, Trump admin Secretary of State: “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on X. It’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.” – [Approx. 08:00]
• Context:
  • EU’s DSA (2022) aims to regulate very large online platforms.
  • X’s recent history: Musk’s takeover, policy changes, controversy over misinformation and bots, recent Brazil ban (subsequently lifted).
  • This is the first major sanction under the DSA.

4. What the Left is Saying [11:01–13:56]

• Position: The fine addresses clear violations, not censorship.
• Key Arguments:
  • Transparency requirements are basic legal frameworks not related to suppressing speech.
  • “The blue checks charge is about consumer deception. X changed the rules about how it does verification in a way that allowed impersonation and scams to flourish.”
    —Daphne Keller, Tech Policy Press [11:32]
  • X’s ad repository shortcomings and restricted data access for public-interest research.
  • Some on the left argue the fine could have been larger and that the EU is “pulling its punches”—possibly weakening regulatory precedent for enforcement against other platforms.
  • “X misled users by monetizing its blue check marks so anyone could become verified. It blocked independent researchers… penalty could have been much bigger.”
    —Parme Olsson, Bloomberg [12:29]

5. What the Right is Saying [13:56–16:36]

• Position: The fine is an attack on free speech and/or Elon Musk's political views.
• Key Arguments:
  • Skepticism that official reasons are the real motive; belief that the fine is about controlling dissenting, unmediated information.
  • “The real reasons have little to do with those allegations and everything to do with the kind of speech the EU wants to suppress.”
    —Editors, The Free Press [14:12]
  • The DSA enforcement is seen as incentivizing US companies to limit speech, not just in Europe but globally.
  • EU’s requirement for open ad data seen as a way to arm activist groups/regulators against platforms.
    • “Brussels wants to force X… to share data that hostile activists can wield against the platforms in future regulatory actions…”
      —The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board [15:06]
  • Musk’s support for insurgent populist movements cited as a motive for targeting X.

6. What European Writers are Saying [16:36–19:33]

• Diverse Views:
  • Some see US conservative backlash as opportunistic attacks fueling the “culture war”.
    • “Talking up Britain and Europe as lost hands could act as a way of warning Americans what might happen if they allow the left to govern again.”
      —Katie Balls, The Times [16:58]
  • Warnings that if the US populist right stays in power, transatlantic criticism of the EU will intensify.
  • Conservative European writers frame the DSA as a censorship regime.
    • “The DSA is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on free speech online… the law is far from neutral. Rather, it has been routinely weaponized against the EU’s critics, especially from the right.”
      —Lawrence Smith, The European Conservative [17:54]
  • Points out DSA’s election “risk” guidance as a tool to preemptively restrict “politically inconvenient views”.

7. Isaac Saul’s Take [19:33–28:26]

• Personal History with X:
  • Initially loved Twitter for open debate/news, but criticized its moderation decisions and Musk's later changes, especially manipulated algorithms and proliferation of bots and misinformation.
  • Strongly dislikes current X but warns against cheering for government overreach.
• Deep Concerns about the DSA and European Regulatory Trends:
  • Europe is “backsliding in genuinely horrifying ways on speech rights.”
    • Examples: UK prosecutions for online speech, Germany’s punitive actions, France’s narrow rights.
  • The DSA empowers the EU to pressure global platforms and potentially override US speech norms.
  • Criticizes the arguments for the fine:
    • Blue Check policy: Users are generally not confused by the paid system; dislikes it, but says it shouldn't be illegal.
    • Ad transparency demands: Considered a severe overreach with consequences for business competition, not just Big Tech.
    • Data access for researchers: Terms of service should be up to the company; sees EU’s demand as subjective and potentially abused.
      • “If my team came up with a brilliant strategy to advertise Tangle on X, I wouldn’t want our timing, location, and price points… shared… where our competitors could mimic or steal the strategy…” [22:47]
  • Warns that even if X technically violated the DSA, the law itself is the true problem—a precedent for international regulatory overreach with major free speech risks.
    • “Believing this enforcement against a US Tech company has nothing to do with speech rights requires head in the sand levels of denial.” [27:09]
  • Urges caution, not because X is virtuous, but because defending its right to run a “crappy, hard to analyze platform full of angry, embittered users” is essential for speech rights.
    • “Trust me when I say we should not want any government in charge of regulating speech in the modern day public square, but especially not these governments.” [26:44]

8. Staff Dissents [28:26–29:58]

• Will Kaback, Senior Editor:

  • Agrees the DSA has issues, but doesn’t find the EU’s action alarming: X can appeal or withdraw from Europe if rules get too restrictive. Unlikely similar regulation would be adopted in the US.

• Ari Weitzman, Managing Editor:

  • Disagrees with Isaac regarding data scraping: Thinks researchers should have a right to automate public data collection; solution is to write clear legal requirements.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The blue checks charge is about consumer deception. X changed the rules about how it does verification in a way that allowed impersonation and scams to flourish.”
  —Daphne Keller, Tech Policy Press [11:32]

• “The real reasons have little to do with those allegations and everything to do with the kind of speech the EU wants to suppress.”
  —Editors, The Free Press [14:12]

• “Brussels wants to force X… to share data that hostile activists can wield against the platforms in future regulatory actions…”
  —The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board [15:06]

• “We should not want any government in charge of regulating speech in the modern day public square, but especially not these governments.”
  —Isaac Saul [26:44]

• “Believing this enforcement against a US Tech company has nothing to do with speech rights requires head in the sand levels of denial.”
  —Isaac Saul [27:09]

Important Timestamps

• [01:57] – Isaac’s correction and commitment to transparency
• [05:29] – Announcement of the EU’s fine and its context
• [11:01] – Left-leaning commentary and analysis
• [13:56] – Right-leaning commentary and analysis
• [16:36] – European writers weigh in
• [19:33] – Isaac’s comprehensive take
• [28:26] – Staff dissenting opinions

Final Thoughts

This episode underscores the complexity at the intersection of speech rights, tech regulation, and global influence in a shifting political landscape. The EU’s fine against X is portrayed by some as overdue accountability for tech giants, by others as a dangerous overreach, and for Isaac Saul, as a moment to urge vigilance against government intrusion into the digital public square—even (or especially) when the target is a platform he himself has come to dislike.

Summary prepared for listeners who haven’t tuned in—covering all key arguments, illustrative quotes, and the episode’s unique, non-partisan style.