Tom Rose's entry on the X platform was a clear signal on which the United States side stands in the dispute over the digital bill. The American ambassador stated that president Karol Nawrocki "deserved large credit" for vetoing the Polish Digital Services Act, strengthening the enforcement of the EU DSA.
According to Rose, this package of government would act as a brake for improvement – to strangle innovation, punish success and build advanced barriers for fresh technology companies. In his communicative Poland is faced with a choice: either to become a "area of compliance" for another people's technologies, or a country that builds and exports its own digital solutions.
This support from across the ocean perfectly entered the line of argument of the Presidential Palace, which from the beginning presents the bill not as a protective shield, but a risky tool of administrative censorship.
What blocked the veto? Polish Digital Services Act
The revision of the Electronic Services Act by the president did not make the EU DSA from scratch. She was only expected to "translate" European regulations into Polish realities. The aim was to guarantee that the State had clearly described procedures, erstwhile and how it could request blocking of content on the network, and users – how they could appeal specified decisions.
The task defined a catalogue of 27 categories of prohibited acts involving the strongest measurement – a blocking order. Among them were criminal threats, pedophile content, encouraging suicide, incitement to hatred from a national, cultural or spiritual background, propaganda of totalitarian ideologies, as well as announcements serving the illegal trade of goods and services or violating copyright.
The Act assumed that a motion for a block could be filed by legitimate services – prosecutors, police, KAS, border guards – but besides by users themselves, if they feel victims of crime or see peculiarly harmful content on the network. The decisions were to be made by the CEOs of UKE and KRRiT, and the telecommunications regulator in any cases could even order the unlocking of content removed by platforms "just in case".
The author of the suspicious content would receive notice, have 2 days to present his position, and he would be given opposition to the court within 14 days. It was this component – a short time to respond to a state camera – that the president pointed out as peculiarly dangerous.
President Nawrocki versus "Ministry of Truth"
In his speech, Karol Nawrocki admitted that the net is simply a very large threat, especially for children, but felt that the proposed solutions went far besides far. In his view, the task built a mechanics in which an official, dependent on the government, is given the right to decide what is acceptable in public debate and what is to vanish from the network.
The president reached for a literary metaphor— George Orwell's "Year 1984"—and compared the plan of the bill to the Ministry of Truth, in which power determines what is fact and what is an "unrighteous" opinion. He pointed out that an average user who did not agree with the official's decision would gotta object to the court within 14 days. In practice, with the bulk of cases and complex procedures, it could be impossible for many people.
The conclusion of the head of state was clear: it will not sign a bill which in its opinion introduces administrative censorship alternatively of strengthening real judicial control. The veto of 9 January stopped the full mechanics at the national phase – the EU DSA is formally in force, but Polish tools for its enforcement were stopped.
Government and experts warn: without fresh tools it is easier for criminals
Before the president announced his decision, digital safety specialists and kid protection organisations appealed to sign the bill. They pointed out that without clear procedures specified as those described in the amendment, the state has limited capacity to respond to the most drastic content – from pedophile materials, by encouraging suicide, to violent hatred and organised disinformation campaigns.
After the veto, the speech of the government became much sharper. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digitization Krzysztof Gawkowski stated that the head of state "ve vetoed safety on the Internet", exposing Polish children to a greater hazard from predators' websites.
In the government narration, the bill was primarily intended to strengthen users' rights towards platforms – to enforce transparency of algorithms, to facilitate reporting of content breaches and to force global companies to cooperate with Polish institutions.
Without these tools, the supporters of the amendment, the fight against hate, fraud, financial scams or Russian propaganda will be slower, little effective and more dependent on the goodwill of the platforms themselves.
Between Brussels and Washington. Where is Poland's business?
Tom Rose's entry shows the geopolitical dimension of the dispute over the digital bill. The American ambassador not only defended the President's decision, but besides unequivocally criticized the EU's approach, calling the DSA a "criminal" and "anti-American" package.
This fits well with the interests of American technological giants who have been looking at European regulations for years with increasing distrust. Brussels is building a strategy where platforms are to bear greater work for what is happening on the network. Washington – at least at the level of any political and business elites – fears that specified a model will become a model for subsequent states and will weaken the global position of US companies.
