Freedom of speech vs. regulation "purification": What does Vitalik think about the EU DSA's "zero tolerance" governance

【Chain Wen】The EU’s Digital Services Act has recently sparked another wave of discussion. This regulation emphasizes the governance concept of “Zero Space,” which, simply put, aims to completely eliminate controversial content—such as hate speech and false information—by not allowing them to appear at all. It sounds like maintaining order, but is this approach truly feasible?

Vitalik has recently shared many ideas. He believes that this “one-size-fits-all” governance approach is actually heading toward authoritarianism. Why? Because once the definition of “harmful content” is established, it will inevitably lead to conflicts—who decides the standards? How are standards defined? Ultimately, it will inevitably evolve into technical bureaucrats enforcing a set of subjective judgments through systems. This is a disaster for a diverse society.

His core point is straightforward: in a free society, there will always be people wanting to sell “dangerous things” or promote “bad ideas,” which is unavoidable. But the issue is not whether these voices can be completely eradicated, but how to prevent them from monopolizing the entire topic space.

So what to do? Vitalik proposed an alternative—using “incentive mechanisms” instead of “bans” to promote social platforms to be more open and transparent. In other words, rather than relying on deletion and censorship, empower users to identify, filter, and evaluate information themselves. This “user empowerment” approach aligns more with the spirit of Web3 decentralization.