EFF and ARTICLE 19 Sound Alarm: Trusted Flaggers Could Turn the DSA into a Censorship Machine
EFF and ARTICLE 19’s joint submission to the European Commission on the Digital Services Act’s (DSA) Trusted Flagger Guidelines isn’t just another regulatory document. It’s a warning. The proposed system, designed to help platforms identify illegal content faster, could become a tool for over-censorship, government manipulation, and the erosion of free speech. As the submission makes clear, without strong safeguards, the Trusted Flagger mechanism risks turning the DSA into a censorship machine operated by unelected authorities.
The core issue? Trusted flaggers—selected by platforms to report illegal content—could be pressured by governments or corporations to flag lawful speech as ‘illegal.’ The submission argues that law enforcement bodies, already empowered under Article 9 of the DSA, shouldn’t gain additional influence through trusted flagger status. This would let authorities bypass due process, treating notices from ‘trusted’ entities as de facto removal orders. Imagine a scenario where a police department, acting as a trusted flagger, flags content critical of government policy. Under current proposals, platforms might comply without question, silencing dissent under the guise of ‘efficiency.’
Another alarming concern is the potential for over-removal of lawful content. The guidelines emphasize that platforms must not assume a trusted flagger’s notice warrants action. Yet, if platforms are incentivized to act quickly to avoid penalties, they might prioritize speed over accuracy. This could lead to the suppression of controversial but legal speech—especially in politically charged contexts. The submission cites examples where content deemed ‘extreme’ by some is protected under national law, yet could be flagged internationally under the DSA’s framework.
Cross-border assessments add another layer of complexity. The submission argues that trusted flaggers should not be used to enforce laws across EU Member States where legal standards differ. For instance, content legal in Germany might be flagged as illegal in Italy based on a trusted flagger’s report. This could force platforms to over-censor to avoid liability in stricter jurisdictions, stifling free expression in more lenient regions.
Systemic risks extend beyond content moderation. The DSA’s framework focuses heavily on removing illegal content, but the submission argues it should also address platform design choices that amplify harmful content. Recommender systems, for example, could push users toward extremist material even if the platform doesn’t host it. Trusted flaggers might not address this, leaving a gap in the DSA’s ability to mitigate systemic harms.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are framed as essential but vulnerable. The submission notes that groups like ARTICLE 19 often report human rights abuses but face retaliation. Trusted flagger status could expose them to abuse campaigns if their reports are weaponized. The guidelines must protect CSOs from being targeted by governments or bad actors seeking to discredit them.
EFF and ARTICLE 19 also stress that trusted flaggers should complement, not replace, existing partnerships. Many effective content moderation collaborations involve non-EU organizations with regional expertise. Excluding them could weaken the DSA’s global impact and ignore critical local knowledge.
The heart of the submission is a call for transparency and accountability. Trusted flaggers must operate under strict rules: their reports should be subject to judicial review, platforms must document their assessments, and users should have avenues to challenge flagged content. Without these, the system risks becoming a blunt instrument for censorship.
The DSA’s Trusted Flagger Dilemma: Efficiency vs. Liberty
The European Commission’s draft guidelines attempt to balance efficiency with rights. On paper, trusted flaggers could reduce the burden on platforms to manually review content. But efficiency shouldn’t come at the cost of liberty. The submission argues that the DSA’s original intent—protecting free expression while holding platforms accountable—is being undermined by a system that prioritizes speed over scrutiny.
This tension is not new. In the U.S., Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has long been criticized for shielding platforms from liability while allowing them to censor content at their discretion. The DSA’s Trusted Flagger mechanism risks replicating this imbalance. By giving trusted flaggers disproportionate influence, the EU could create a new form of platform censorship that’s harder to challenge than traditional content removal.
What’s Next? A Call for Grassroots Resistance
The EFF and ARTICLE 19 submission is a crucial step, but it’s not enough. Civil society, tech workers, and ordinary users must push back against a system designed to centralize power. The Trusted Flagger Guidelines are just one piece of the DSA puzzle, but their implementation could set a precedent for how free speech is managed in the digital age.
This isn’t just about avoiding censorship—it’s about preserving the internet as a space for dissent, creativity, and unfiltered debate. If the EU adopts these guidelines without robust safeguards, the DSA could become a tool for authoritarianism under the guise of regulation. The alternative? A system where platforms, users, and independent watchdogs collaborate to enforce the law without sacrificing liberty.
In the end, the battle for digital freedom isn’t fought in courtrooms or Brussels bureaucracies. It’s fought in the code of platforms, the algorithms that shape our feeds, and the voices that dare to speak out. Trusted flaggers could either be a shield for free expression or a sword used to silence it. The choice lies in the hands of those who dare to demand better.
Related Reading
Similar posts
Tue, 01 Se · Commentary
The Copyright Trap: How Fake Claims Are Silencing Independent Media in Somalia
Somali independent journalists are being drowned in fraudulent copyright claims—not to protect creativity, but to muzzle reporting on corruption, conflict, and human rights abuses. Here's how a broken system is weaponize
Fri, 10 Ju · Digital Rights
Building Our Future Together: Digital Rights on the Brink of a Surveillance State
In a pivotal moment for digital freedom, EFF's new leader warns of a world where surveillance and centralized power threaten rights. Explore the stakes of AI, government overreach, and the urgent need for collective acti
Fri, 19 Ju · Digital Rights