Fine for X, offensive against Telegram: Europe is waging war on digital freedom

On Friday 5 December 2025, the European Commission fined X 120 million euros, Elon Musk's platform. On the surface: a simple slap on the wrist for failing to comply with the Digital Services Act (DSA). In reality? A frontal attack on the last major platform where speech is not moderated on demand.

And while the media applaud what they call a regulatory victory, another event, passed over in silence, deserves just as much attention: Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, placed under formal investigation in Paris this summer for refusing to install automated censorship tools.

Two platforms. Two visions. Two sanctions. One single logic: punish those who resist the ideological standardization imposed by Brussels.

What Brussels (officially) holds against X

The fine rests on three grievances:

• a lack of clarity on targeted advertising,
• restricted access to data for researchers,
• confusion over account reliability with paid blue badges.

But none of these points is unique to X. Meta, TikTok and Google do exactly the same thing, sometimes worse, without being fined. The only difference? X does not obey.

Since Musk took over Twitter, he did not just buy a company. He took back control of a digital space where speech could once again step outside the frame validated by the elites. The result: Brussels never digested that slap in the face. This fine is not a legal act. It is a political warning shot.

Claire Dilé, X's French dead weight

In this explosive context, the stance of X's French leadership is quite simply disastrous. Claire Dilé, head of X France, publicly acknowledged that moderation measures "adapted to the local context" were being applied.

Translation: X quietly moderates in France to please the authorities.

She speaks of "partial shadow bans" as a necessary evil. A staggering admission that directly contradicts the doctrine Musk displays internationally.

This is no longer just a conflict between Brussels and a company. It is an internal conflict.

On one side, a global boss who campaigns for free speech without filters.
On the other, a local leadership doing quiet damage control to stay in the administration's good books.

And this double-speak weakens any strategic defense of X. It validates the EU's criticisms, hands ammunition to the censors, and suggests that the platform can be "brought back into line" country by country.

Telegram: same fight, different battlefield

While X is taking fines, Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, was detained in Paris in August. He is today under formal investigation for complicity in the distribution of illegal content.

Why?
Because Telegram still refuses to install proactive moderation tools on its encrypted messaging services.

In other words: because it respects encryption.

Durov did not give in. He held his line. The result?

• a court summons,
• pressure to moderate more harshly,
• the threat of being banned in Europe.

Once again, the problem is not the content. It is the disobedience. Telegram, like X, does not want to hand the EU the right to define what may or may not be said. And for that, it is being dragged through the mud.

DSA: a regulatory tool or a standardization machine?

The Digital Services Act had been presented as a response to the excesses of the GAFAM. In practice, it has turned into a machine for producing ideological compliance.

• Imposed audits,
• Content takedowns within 24 hours,
• Permanent accountability.

Free speech becomes conditional. And the slightest platform that does not fall in line becomes a problem to solve. The most worrying part? This regulatory framework does not go after deceptive content... but after the platforms that escape power.

What they don't tell you: the DSA, a tool of domestic geopolitics

Brussels does not go after TikTok.
Brussels does not sanction Meta for its privacy violations.
But Brussels punishes X for having given visibility to conservative, sovereigntist or dissident opinions.

And it is no coincidence that this fine comes right after a series of "unwelcome" posts about Ukraine, NATO, or migration policies.

Same scenario for Telegram:

• Does end-to-end encryption get in the way of surveillance?
• Out comes the "indirect complicity in terrorism" card.

They no longer target offenses.
They target structural disobedience.

We are not "protected." We are being tested.

X. Telegram. Others will follow.

This regulation is not trying to clean up the digital space.
It is trying to standardize speech. To align platforms on a single line: that of authorized opinion.

What is troubling about Musk is not that he sells blue badges for 8 euros.
It is that he refuses to act as the ideological police for Brussels.

What is troubling about Durov is not that he hosts extremist groups.
It is that he refuses to hand over his users like cattle to the authorities.

📣 This is no longer a question of regulation. It is a question of the sovereignty of speech.
And as long as Europe prefers compliance to freedom, the fines will fall on the rebels, never on the docile.

Christophe Mazzola - Cybersecurity expert, author of "Être en Cybersécurité", advocate of a clear-eyed Europe.