DSA Digital Services Act: Greed, Surveillance and Naïve

President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the Digital Services Act (DSA) on January 9, 2026. The aim of the EU Regulation is to "ensure a secure, predictable and trustworthy net environment". It's a good time to look at the bigger picture.

On 4 November 2025, I took part in a public proceeding concerning a government draft law implementing DSA. The proceeding was organised by the Parliamentary Committee on Digitization, Innovation and Modern Technologies.

The DSA is an effort to restrict the power of respective greedy and governmented men, and associated politicians controlling corporations specified as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.

Cheeky smart guys who have been treating the net like their own private farm for years, and you and me like free natural material to make a profit. It's a hit on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube that's utilized to being manipulated by algorithms, making kids dependent on digital drugs, trade our data. And pretend that all this is an answer to “our request for convenience” alternatively than “their request for extortion”.

DSA's goal is to tell these sociopaths from the American and Chinese Silicon Valley directly: the end of impunity. No more hiding behind the rules so no 1 can realize them. The end of pretending that the platforms are ‘neutral’, while in reality they control what our children see, what they feel and how long they sit in front of the screens. due to the fact that DSA is expected to defend children online, at least in its assumptions.

Public proceeding in the Sejm of November 4, 2025

Orwell and Zuboff

I received 2 minutes from the organizers (sic!) to execute in the Sejm. I began with Orwell's words: “If freedom means anything at all, it is only as a right to tell people things they do not want to hear.” It wasn't a coincidence. Original version The DSA Digital Services Act prepared by the government smelled like censorship per kilometer. It increased the power of corporations and government over us. If you would like to know the details, delight mention to the statements of social organizations from civil hearings of April 7, 2025. There you can see what the real intentions of the project's authors were. They were and are, due to the fact that it is naive to think that these intentions – profoundly hidden, invisible to the average citizen – suddenly, now disappeared.

In my speech, I appreciated the fact that the government introduced a number of changes to the project. It's a step in the right direction, and... inactive not enough.

Power and money, not children

When you don't know what's going on, it's about even more power and even more profit. Above us and at the expense of us.

Therefore, I illustrated my speech with the cover of prof. Shoshana Zuboff's book "The age of capitalism of surveillance. Fighting for the future of humanity on a fresh border of power”. Retired prof. of Harvard Business School on 830 pages shows the paleness of political and business power. Looking at 3 decades of my activity on the frontlines of civic campaigns, I can say 1 thing: regardless of organization colors and business logos, intentions stay the same—the lust for power and greed.

Hard and without anesthesia

– this is how we have been operating since 2020. Journalism that is not indifferent. The civilian Affairs Weekly announces abuse, educates and gives tools for a real, civic change.

Donate and become our contributor

I remember protesting against Multilateral Investment Agreement (MAI) in the 1990s. The agreement allowed corporations to sue the states if the regulations limited their profits. present large business defends itself against regulation equally fiercely – only in white gloves and utilizing digital misinformation. An example? Calling antisocial advertising platforms social media is the tallness of disinformation.

Democracy? Let's do a draw.

During my speech I proposed 3 amendments to Government draft law amending the Act on the provision of services by electronic means (print No 1757).

First of all, I have proposed that candidates be drawn to the National Digital Services Council — bodies that in practice are to co-determine how DSA will operate in Poland. Why? due to the fact that the draft law states that "the president of the Council, the Deputy president of the Council and the another members of the Council are appointed by the Digital Services Coordinator". And who is this coordinator, standing at the top of the full platform supervision strategy in Poland? He is the president of the Office for Electronic Communications. And who is calling the president of UKE? Prime Minister at the request of the Minister of Digital Affairs. The Sejm only formally applauds the decision as a vending device to stamp political nominations. It is hard to talk about independence, since the man liable for freedom of speech on the net is de facto chosen by the same authority, which he is to control later. What else don't you understand?

Therefore, my request is simple: since the coordinator of digital services is simply a political denomination, let us at least choice members of the Council at random — from candidates representing different environments, not just those who look good in pictures with ministers. This preserves the EU framework and reduces the temptation to politicise choices. Today is ruled by 1 organization business group, next day by another.. The draw mechanics at least limits the temptation of current winners to seize institutions. If politicians and leaders of non-governmental organizations are so eager to talk about democracy, freedom and equal opportunities, let them remember that in ancient Greece, offices were filled by a draw — to reduce corruption, the influence of rich people and to give voice to those who are not invited to rautas.

Second thing: the task says that candidates for the Council may submit "social and economical organisations related to the digital services market". I proposed adding: "Related and non-market related digital services". Why? due to the fact that all power loves to environment itself with its “own” organizations, which always know what to say and erstwhile to keep quiet. Citizens request a variety of voices, not just those comfortable for the ruling. The current evidence is simply a privileged manufacture lobby, i.e. in the majority of entities to be heavy dependent on the interests of technology corporations, mobile network operators and screen manufacturers.

Finally, the 3rd demand: Article 11 of the Act provides for only 14 days to appeal against a decision by the president of UKE ordering the removal or regulation of access to the content. Fourteen days — as if we were all robots without disease, responsibilities, families, and life outside the screen. I proposed to extend this word to 60 days, due to the fact that in the real planet people have jobs, children, wellness problems and simply can not always respond at a rate that corresponds to officials.

How many of these amendments do you think were included in the final bill that hit the President's desk? Answer, none.

Police Thoughts?

There are also absurdities in the bill. For example, the president of UKE – nominated by the current power – would give the position of "trusted signaller". It would be received by entities "who have peculiar expertise and competence in detecting, identifying and reporting illegal content and which operate independently, nonsubjective and transparently". Sounds beautiful. In practice, pure discretion. It scares me to think who could become specified a “trusted” signaler. Police thought 2.0?

I encourage you to read comments from another people and organisations looking at the hands of the authorities. I don't agree with everyone, but 1 thing is certain: the bill needs work. due to the fact that there's a lot to change.

President's veto. What's next?

President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the bill on January 9, 2026. In his justification, he said:

‘Let's fix it. Within a month, we can prepare an honest project. In 2 months, we can have a bill that protects children and respects the Constitution. I invitation you to jointly prepare a good task for the Ministry of Digitisation and organizations that have turned to the president on this matter. Freedom of speech must be protected by courts – quickly, effectively and independently. It's worth improving, it's worth doing right. Let us not waste time, for the sake of the youngest, let us build a state of freedom, not a state of censorship!’

I agree: we request a bill that protects citizens from pathologies and exploitation of owners of antisocial advertising platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube), smartphone manufacturers (Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi) and mobile operators (T‐Mobile, Play, Plus, Orange).

I accept veto as an chance to make a bill beneficial to citizens, not to organization power, service or business.

At the same time, I would like to point out: the civilian Affairs Institute did not address the president in this matter, but declared its willingness to participate in the work on a fair project. A task that does not exploit children's welfare and safety just to smuggle regulation into the peculiar interest of power and lobbyists at the expense of our rights and freedoms

Finally, the ban

I always wonder erstwhile I learn that a politician, a scientist, a freeman, an official, or another afraid president, preaches the request to defend children from pedophiles, frauds and trolls and simultaneously opposes National ban on bringing smartphones to schools. due to the fact that then it's an effort on property and freedom. And for participating rules in schools among students, teachers, parents and directors. And children request to be “educated” to usage the Internet. As part of digital hygiene, of course. So here's the thing: I'm a proponent of participatory solutions erstwhile the sun shines and we have quite a few time. But erstwhile the home is in flames – and we have had a national intellectual wellness crisis of over 630 000 children for years – it is not adequate to find how we will put it out. We request to put out the fire in non-participative mode. Just as it is essential to regulate digital drug dealers. I'll compose more, We request to break down their monopolies, just as it was done to break up the monopoly of the AT&T telecommunications empire