2025-12-26 20:29:05

Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin recently criticized the "Zero Space" governance model in the EU Digital Services Act. He believes that directly categorizing certain speech or goods as objects that must be completely eliminated essentially reflects a governance mindset lacking diversity and inclusiveness.

This has sparked reflections on the boundaries of regulatory authority: does an overly strict content censorship mechanism truly benefit the healthy development of the ecosystem? Vitalik's perspective points to a deeper issue— in the era of globalization and decentralized Web3, can unilateral forced deletion policies be truly effective, and do they not violate the principles of openness and freedom advocated by the crypto ecosystem?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RugpullSurvivor

· 2h ago

V is right, just delete and remove. This routine should have been changed a long time ago. --- The EU's approach is outrageous. Censorship feels good for a moment, but it leads to an ecological cremation. --- Here we go again, the old centralized control approach can't solve the problem at all. --- You insist on centralizing what should be decentralized? Isn't that funny? --- I agree with Vitalik. This one-size-fits-all approach will eventually backfire. --- The problem is regulators simply won't listen, so we have to find our own solutions. --- Delete, delete, delete. Always just deleting. Truly uncreative. --- Diversity and inclusion? Uh... maybe too advanced for the EU. --- That's why we need Web3. Don't wait for them to change their minds.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketNoodler

· 17h ago

V God has hit the nail on the head this time; the zero-tolerance approach simply can't be implemented on the chain.

View OriginalReply0

DegenGambler

· 17h ago

Vitalik's recent comments hit the nail on the head. The EU's "zero tolerance" approach is really about a one-size-fits-all solution, without considering ecological diversity at all. The NFT community has already been through a crackdown once, and now they want to do it again? That's laughable. Once censorship policies are loosened, they can't be pulled back. Who will be the next to be convicted is anyone's guess... Decentralization needs to be meaningful and flexible. If everything is just rigid rules, what do we call freedom? Honestly, this bill is like a hammer smashing nuts. Everyone is afraid of being labeled as "violators," and innovation is directly stifled.

View OriginalReply0

FantasyGuardian

· 18h ago

V哥说得对，一刀切的审查机制根本就是治标不治本嘛 --- The EU's approach is truly outrageous, just thinking about blunt deletion, not understanding what open governance means --- Basically, it's about convenience for power, and freedom is gone. What about the original intention of Web3? --- This censorship logic on-chain simply doesn't work, as if every node would obey --- Vitalik's statements are still so clear-headed, hitting the core — diversity and inclusion vs. one-size-fits-all, which one to choose? --- Mandatory deletion? Ha, the crypto community hates this approach the most, it's against the original intention --- It seems the EU hasn't understood what decentralization really is, still using the old centralized methods --- Content governance is indeed necessary, but "zero tolerance" is too absolute, isn't that going to the extreme? --- Balancing open freedom and regulation, it seems the EU hasn't figured it out yet

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien