The combination between DSA and the gender agenda expands control over digital content.
The strategy also targets so-called “anti-gender narratives”, presented as a threat to the democratic order. This characterization implies that traditional political or cultural positions are directly associated with systemic risks, enabling more aggressive moderation mechanisms on the part of digital platforms, which face million-dollar penalties in the event of
The European Union was once again at the center of the controversy after moving forward with a new gender strategy that, under the argument of combating “online violence”, significantly expands its capacity to intervene in the digital public debate. The measure is articulated with the regulatory framework already in force, in particular the Digital Services Act (DSA), consolidating an increasingly restrictive framework for content on social networks
.The most controversial point lies in the definition of “systemic risks” that large platforms must address. Within that category, Brussels included the so-called “gender-based violence”, a concept that in practice expands beyond specific aggressions to encompass expressions that could generate psychological harm or discomfort. This ambiguity opens the door to broad interpretations that can lead to the censorship of legitimate opinions
.
In this context, any criticism of gender ideology, debates on biology or questions of public policies related to these issues could be classified as forms of “violence” or “harmful discourse”. The result is an increasingly narrow terrain for the free circulation of ideas, where dissent risks being penalized under
Since the entry into force of the DSA in February 2024, large technology companies are required to evaluate and mitigate these risks, which in practice encourages the preventive removal of content to avoid penalties. This phenomenon, known as “over-compliance censorship”, ends up affecting even publications that do not violate any clear rule, but that could be considered problematic under
broad interpretations.
The advance of this type of regulation reflects a deeper trend within the European Union: the use of increasingly vague concepts such as “disinformation”, “hate speech” or “online violence” to justify greater control over the digital ecosystem l. In this scenario, the line between the protection of rights and the restriction of freedoms becomes increasingly blurred
.Far from merely guaranteeing equality before the law, Brussels seems to be moving towards the imposition of specific ideological frameworks, where certain opinions are left out of the permitted debate. When political power defines which ideas can circulate and which should be silenced, freedom of expression ceases to be a principle and becomes a concession
.
