EU moderation watchdog says social media giants hate taking down hate speech

That's because they're based in a country where it's illegal for the government to prohibit hate speech. An EU government can't effectively limit freedom of speech within the platforms, so any censoring would have to be done ether through blocking data as it enters the country or by prosecuting users of the platform.

Tech industry's standard playbook for subverting the DSA/DMA and maximizing their profits through wildly inappropriate checks and balances within their own platforms.

> In theory, the system gives EU users a free way to challenge moderation decisions through an independent review body. In practice, Appeals Centre Europe says platforms often fail to hand over the disputed content or account material needed to review cases.

> Account bans appear to be where the process really starts to fall apart. Appeals Centre Europe says that despite receiving more than 14,000 suspension disputes, it got enough content from platforms to fully review fewer than 150 cases.

> However, the report also suggests platforms do not always implement the Appeals Centre's decisions even after cases are reviewed. In one section covering disputes submitted by civil society groups, the organization says it is aware of only "a handful" of cases in which platforms acted on its rulings, while many disputed posts remained online.

Start fining them or better yet locking up their executives.

"Moderation watchdog"

"Independent fact checkers"

Pattern noticing is not a hate crime.

That is their biggest trick: to make normal pattern noticing a crime.