Law vs Free Speech (?)

Hi Global Recap readers,

I’ve been debating with myself for a few hours now about whether to send this first story as is—which is unusual for our typically short-to-medium-sized news bites.

But I’ve decided to just rip the band-aid off and hit send. I have strong views here, and sharing them upfront may help those of you who haven’t followed the issue yet, since:

• All I’m seeing on social media (whether on BlueSky or X) are wildly conflicting takes, with people mostly throwing insults rather than having real conversations.

• Form reasoned opinions through conversation (which is what free speech is about) is too difficult to do so in the reply sections of these platforms.

(Plus, today’s a bit of a slow news day, so it’s perfect for an opinion piece)

🇪🇺 EUROPEAN UNION
E.U. Fines Musk’s X

The European Commission has just hit Elon Musk’s platform X with a €120 million fine over its paid blue checkmarks and supposed "lack of transparency." Brussels claims the way X sells "verification" misleads users and leaves them easier to scam.

• Fine: Regulators used the EU’s new Digital Services Act to issue their first ever non-compliance penalty, totaling €120 million (roughly $140 million), for three linked violations.

  1. Checkmarks: The core problem is X Premium’s blue check. Anyone can pay for the badge, yet X does not meaningfully verify who is behind the account, which the Commission calls a "deceptive design" that can fuel impersonation and fraud.

  2. Transparency: X also failed basic sunlight rules. Its ad library is missing key data such as who paid for which ad and what it contained.

  3. Access: Researchers who try to study public posts face roadblocks and delays that the EU says violate transparency obligations too.

• Backlash: Top Trump administration figures rushed to defend Musk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the decision an attack on American tech platforms, Vice President JD Vance framed it as punishment for "not engaging in censorship," and FCC chair Brendan Carr accused Europe of "suffocating regulations." Musk happily reposted their comments.

Opinions

Now, people are rightfully torn about this issue on the internet.

• Supporters of the law argue that if X wants to operate in the E.U., it must follow the EU’s regulatory framework—simple as that.

• Critics counter that the E.U. is selectively targeting X as a form of pressure or punishment, especially since the platform’s leadership is less aligned with traditional regulatory expectations.

Here’s how I view each alleged violation:

1. Checkmarks: Before Musk acquired Twitter, the blue checkmark served as a verification badge that confirmed a user’s identity—mainly public figures, journalists, and organizations.

   1. After the redesign, the checkmark became a paid subscription feature, and although the verification process is no longer what it once was, users have had years to adjust to the new meaning. To call this a "deceptive design" feels overstated to me.

   2. Yes, the symbol carries historical baggage, but public understanding of its purpose clearly shifted along with the product changes. Claiming deception because it no longer means what it used to mean strikes me as a weak argument.

   3. However, one thing standing against X here is the fact that X still calls the feature "verified" which may indeed be very misleading.

2. Transparency: We know that the ad repository has been accused of lacking key information such as the content or topic of the ad and the paying entity. This is obviously problematic, since foreign actors could exploit those gaps to influence elections. However, I'm not entirely sure whether the E.U. is applying the same standards consistently across other major platforms like YouTube and Facebook, so I may have to reserve full judgment on this point for now.

3. Access: Yes, the DSA gives Brussels broad authority to demand researcher access, but that doesn’t automatically make every complaint reasonable. X has tightened scraping and pushed researchers toward paid API usage, which is very common in the industry.

   1. Plenty of platforms restrict automated scraping because it strains infrastructure and exposes them to data-mining abuses, especially from AI firms.

   2. "Public visibility" doesn’t magically convert a platform’s servers into a public utility. If researchers want massive amounts of structured data, the API exists for that purpose (but of course, they would have to pay for it).

   3. It’s fair to debate how open X should be, but calling basic rate limits and paywalls "roadblocks" feels like an ideological judgment disguised as a transparency violation.

   4. That said, supporters of the law have a valid point that if X wants to do business in the E.U., it MUST follow the E.U. rules. One can debate the fairness of those laws, but if the law of the land requires giving vetted researchers access, then a company must either comply or walk away. And if the free market genuinely dislikes the result (if voters want services like X back) they can elect representatives who change the framework. Whether that’s realistic given how the European Parliament operates is another question entirely.

📊 Poll

If it isn’t clear, I’m "in the middle," since this isn’t so cut-and-dry. 👇️ 

🇩🇪 GERMANY
Voluntary Draft,
But For How Long?

Germany has just approved a new military service law that keeps service formally "voluntary" yet forces every 18-year-old man into the system on paper.

• Goal: Berlin wants to grow the Bundeswehr from roughly 182,000 active soldiers to about 260,000 by 2035, plus 200,000 reservists, in order to look credible inside NATO and next to Russia.

• Deal: From early 2026, volunteers who sign up for at least six months get around €2,600 a month pre-tax, and those who stay a year can have part of their driving lessons paid for, which is not nothing if you are 18 and broke.

• Screening: Also from 2026, all 18-year-old men must fill out a questionnaire on fitness and willingness to serve, while women can answer voluntarily because the constitution still blocks compulsory service for them.

• Medicals: From mid-2027, men born in 2008 or later will be called in for compulsory health checks so the state already knows who is draft-ready if things escalate.

• Backlash: Student groups staged strikes in dozens of cities, blasting the checkups as a quiet first step toward a lottery based "needs-based conscription" if too few people volunteer.

• Politics: Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and his Social Democrats sell the law as an incentive program that keeps service voluntary, while conservatives in the CDU and CSU openly say they would rather go back to broader national service.

🇪🇺 E.U. & G7
Plotting New Russia
Oil Squeeze

The E.U. and G7 are debating a ban on Western maritime services for nearly all Russian oil exports, which would effectively end the existing price cap system. If it happens, it would push Russia to rely even more on its murky "shadow fleet," and you know what's been happening to them recently...

• Shift: Since 2022, the G7 price cap has allowed countries like India and China to import Russian oil using Western ships and insurance as long as they paid below the cap, but policymakers now want to scrap that workaround and move to a straight services ban.

• Exposure: Roughly 1/3 of Russian crude and fuel still rides on Western-linked tankers and services, many owned or operated out of Greece, Cyprus, and Malta, which would have to walk away from that business if the new ban lands.

• Shadow: The other 2/3 already move on a "dark" fleet of hundreds of older, lightly regulated tankers without Western insurance, and Russia would likely need to grow that fleet further to keep exports flowing under a tighter regime.

• Timing: EU diplomats are talking about folding the ban into the bloc’s next Russia sanctions package in early 2026, ideally synchronized with a broader G7 deal so the policy lands as a coordinated front rather than a solo EU move.

• Politics: British and American officials are pushing the plan, while the Trump administration is more skeptical after resisting a recent push to lower the crude cap from $60 -> $47.6, and any final U.S. position will be tied to how it wants to pressure Moscow during ongoing Ukraine peace talks.