From X to SpaceX: EU Regulators Could Fine Musk Companies For Free Speech Push

The EU and Brazil are sharpening their regulatory knives, and who better to test their shiny new powers on than Elon Musk, the guy who seems to have made annoying pro-censorship bureaucrats his full-time hobby? Musk’s social media platform, X has become the latest target for both the European Union and Brazil — but they’re not just going after X anymore. The powers-that-be have decided that since X isn’t worth much these days, maybe they should slap fines on Musk’s other companies—SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and even the Boring Company—just because they can.

It’s the ultimate power move by regulators who seem to be more interested in flexing their muscles than addressing real issues. Why settle for a measly 6% fine on a struggling social media platform when you can drag in rockets, to pad the bill?

The EU’s Latest Power Trip: Digital Services Act as a Blank Check

Enter the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU’s newest favorite tool for cracking down on “disinformation” and “hate speech” on major digital platforms. It’s got all the right buzzwords—”transparency,” “safety,” and “accountability”—but underneath the noble-sounding veneer, it’s starting to look more like a blank check for the EU to assert control over Big Tech. The law allows for fines of up to 6% of annual revenue for platforms that don’t comply. But when it comes to X, with its plummeting value—now at a measly $9.4 billion, according to Fidelity—the EU seems to be thinking, “Why stop at X when we can go after Musk’s entire empire?”

Think about it: SpaceX, Neuralink, the Boring Company—what do they have to do with social media disinformation? Nothing, really. But the EU’s got a grudge, and they’re not about to let a little thing like fairness or logic get in their way. Musk’s decision to pull X out of the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice against disinformation in 2023 certainly didn’t help matters. Sure, he had initially played nice back in 2022, but when Musk realized that the EU’s idea of “voluntary” meant “you’ll comply, or else,” he bailed.

Now, Brussels is retaliating by threatening to fine Musk’s companies that have nothing to do with social media, all while pretending this is about “protecting democracy.” If it sounds more like a personal vendetta than a reasoned policy decision, that’s because it probably is.

Brazil Freezes Musk’s Assets: Free Speech or Free for All?

Not to be outdone by their European counterparts, Brazil has decided to take its regulatory saber-rattling to new heights. The country’s highest court recently froze the assets of Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet venture, in an effort to squeeze a $3 million fine out of X for failing to censor content. That’s right—Brazil couldn’t get X to bend to their will, so they decided to take Musk’s satellites hostage. All in the name of combating “misinformation,” of course.

What’s particularly galling about Brazil’s move is how blatantly it ignores the principles of free speech and open communication. The accusation that X “facilitated the spread of misinformation and hate speech” sounds noble on paper, but the way Brazil went about enforcing their demands—by freezing assets of an entirely separate company—looks more like strong-arm tactics than legitimate regulation.

At this point, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that these governments are less concerned with disinformation and more interested in exerting control over tech companies that refuse to play by their increasingly arbitrary rules. Musk, who’s spent years promoting free speech as one of X’s core principles, is now facing a global game of whack-a-mole, with each country seemingly more eager than the last to punish him for refusing to fall in line.

Personal Accountability or Public Power Play?

One of the more interesting twists in the EU’s regulatory circus is the suggestion that they might hold Musk personally accountable under the DSA.

Why? Because, according to the EU’s interpretation, “the entity exercising decisive influence” over a platform—whether that’s a company or an individual—can be on the hook for any wrongdoing. In other words, if Musk’s platform doesn’t comply, they’re coming for him directly.

This is about using Musk as a punching bag to show the world that the EU is still in charge. Thomas Regnier, a spokesperson for the European Commission, helpfully clarified to Bloomberg, that the DSA’s rules apply “irrespective of whether the entity… is a natural or legal person,” which is bureaucrat-speak for, “We’re gunning for Elon.”

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going.

Thank you.

Make a one-time donation

Related Topics:#ElonMuskBrazil #ReclaimTheNet ChristinaMaas ElonMuskVSEU FromXToSpaceX

Up Next

Taxpayers Federation urges Calgary Liberal MP to stand against carbon tax

Don't Miss

Judges to decide if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can sue Biden administration for colluding with social media companies to censor free speech

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design

National / 6 hours ago

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Business

Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

Published on October 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multi-billion climate-change tax targeted squarely at American industry. Without quick and decisive action by the White House, this U.N. tax on fossil fuels will become international law.

This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters. Roughly 80% of the bulkage of world trade is transported by ship.

The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped the European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.

This tax is clearly an unnecessary restraint on world trade, thus making all citizens of the world poorer.

It is also an international tax that would be applied to American vessels and, as such, is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty. Since when are American businesses subject to international taxes imposed by the United Nations?

The U.S maritime industry believes the global tax would cost American shippers more than $100 billion over the next seven years if enacted.

Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer to China, which has come to dominate shipbuilding in recent years. China STRONGLY supports the tax scheme, even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than they have. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for THEIR pollution.

Despite the fact that we pay a disproportionate share of the tax, the U.S. has almost no say on how the revenues are spent. This is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.

Even if the United States chooses not to implement the tax on domestic shipping, it will still be enforced by foreign ports of origin or destination as well as by flag states. As a result, American importers and exporters will be required to pay the tax regardless of domestic policy decisions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.” They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”

The U.S. maritime industry complains that although American vessels carry only about 12% of the globally shipped merchandise, U.S. flag vessels would bear almost 20% of this tax. No wonder China and Europe are for it. The EU nations get 17 yes votes to swamp the one no vote out of Washington.

Unfortunately, right now without White House pressure, we could lose this vote because of defections by our allies.

To prevent this tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures. This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank.

At a time when financial markets are dealing with trade disputes, the last thing the world — least of all the United States — needs is a United Nations excise tax on trade.

Stephen Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.