Me: Mom, can we please have Huurcommissie?

Mom: No, we have Huurcommissie at home.

Huurcommissie at home: landlord fined for charging ‘too little’ in rent

Yes, that’s an accurate description, and I agree. The DSA is new and therefore untested, so it will certainly be a long legal process.

The investigation is specifically about whether X spreads disinformation in a way that is punishable under the DSA, but the headline makes it look like it’s unclear whether X spreads disinformation at all. So I think it’s at least somewhat misleading.

Disinformation on X is pretty much a given, as has been reported many times, see for example X, formerly Twitter, amplifies disinformation amid the Israel-Hamas conflict as reported by CNBC.

This is a good approach in general, but I very much disagree in the case of X. Obvious misinformation is shown right on the front page, and not only since recent attacks on Israel. Elon Musk himself is regularly sharing false information, not to mention the army of blue checks.

As the saying goes: As a journalist, if one person says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s NOT your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and see which is the truth.

So instead of rushing out this “EU said this, X said that” kind of article article, I would expect an organisation like the BBC to find out what’s going on.

Good. But when do we drop the “alleged” part in these headlines?

Perhaps, but in this case OP could have shared an article that objectively analyses the general trend, rather than a year-old article that exaggerates a single decision.