Vitalik Buterin warned that the EU's regulatory approach under the Digital Services Act could risk undermining pluralism by attempting to leave 'space' for controversial speech or products online.
In a detailed post on X, the co-founder of Ethereum argued that a free society should not aim to eliminate ideas it considers harmful. Instead, he stated that regulators should focus on preventing the algorithmic amplification of such content and controlling public discourse.
What does the EU's 'no space' approach mean?
The Digital Services Act applies to the entire electronic ecosystem. Any service that reaches EU users is subject to the law, regardless of size or location. Obligations accumulate with access and risks, but there is no platform outside the regulatory framework.
This design aims to close the legal and technical gaps that previously allowed platforms to evade responsibility.
Critics describe this as a 'no space' approach, meaning there should be no unregulated digital gaps where harmful content can escape accountability.
The goal is not comprehensive censorship. Instead, the DSA focuses on risk assessments, transparency, and platform design choices that affect how content spreads.
Buterin stated that the real failure of modern social platforms is not the presence of fringe opinions, but rather that algorithms often amplify them broadly.
He warned that absolute thinking with tolerance can lead to crossing boundaries, conflict, and increased reliance on technical law enforcement.
Buterin warned that treating disliked ideas as diseases to be eradicated reflects an anti-pluralism instinct. He argued that disagreement is inevitable in open societies, and trying to completely eliminate controversial views often expands the powers of surveillance and enforcement.
He advocated for user empowerment, transparency, and competition. In his view, platforms should reduce incentives that reward harmful content, rather than trying to eliminate it entirely.
Are you optimistic about privacy coins?
The discussion has also drawn attention to privacy coins like Monero and Zcash.
As regulators push platforms to monitor behavior and retain more data, users may become more aware that increased oversight often leads to heightened data exposure.
This enhances the narrative appeal of financial tools designed to reduce traceability.
However, the impact is uneven. While philosophical support for privacy coins may grow, access to regulated EU markets remains restricted. Exchanges continue to restrict or remove them due to compliance risks.
In short, Europe's approach emphasizes the importance of privacy, even as it complicates the operating spaces of privacy-focused tools.
