No. You thought you'd nailed me on a nitpicky detail and instead got hoisted up on your own petard.

No. You got every single detail in your spiel wrong and are now pissed and arguing air. My mistake was to treat you nicely.

1. You called a right wing writer liberal

2. You used a person from the UK in your example on the DSA., when the UK is not in Europe U anymore and not subject to the European U
DSA. That's fairly basic and you got it wrong.

3. You classified a legal activity of firing a rifle in a gun range in the USA as a criminal activity that could be sanctioned and fined in Europe - without explanation of how the DSA applied to it, and it doesn't.

4. You posed an individual person stating "men are men and women are women" as being subject to fines, etc., due to systemic risk which refers to broad, large-scale negative impacts on society arising from the design or functioning of large online platforms regarding illegal activity by groups, deliberate large misinformationa campaigns, etc.

5. The big example in Romania was the court negating an election because the Russians did a huge amount of illegal advertising for a candidate that is pro Russia and anti-Western. THAT'S THE BEST EXAMPLE THAT SUPPORTS DSA!

So you were wrong or waaaay off on 4 of 5 points, and your 5th point actually supports DSA

And you think people don't actually see this? And you think if you pretend that didn't happen and bluster that's going to work? People see it and know that you don't think through what you are writing and then try and bluster your way out of being totally fucking wrong.