Mr. Ronan Costello:

I thank the committee for its invitation to participate in today’s session. In this opening statement, I will provide our observations on the Bill while briefly discussing the international regulatory context and Ireland’s unique role at this milestone of Internet governance.

The open Internet has been an unprecedented engine for economic growth, cultural development and self-expression. At Twitter, we define the open Internet as a global and borderless digital space where anyone can freely access information and express themselves, and where businesses can start, innovate and compete with relative ease. However, we believe this vision of the open Internet faces challenges that we all acknowledge, including Twitter and members of this committee. Its fruits are being undermined by the consolidation of industry, the regression of civil and respectful discourse and the subversive spread of harmful disinformation. Twitter asks that we approach the regulatory response to these challenges from a shared foundation in that the laws we make should protect, not diminish, the global and open Internet. They should nurture fair competition, not choke it. They should encourage diversity in approaches to content moderation. They should mandate a degree of interoperability between services. Institutions such as the EU and the Irish Government, which are now at the frontier of this new era, should be mindful that the regulatory models and penalties they enact will be exported across the world to service political agendas of all kinds.

With regard to the general scheme of the Bill, we wish to highlight three primary concerns. First, the global and borderless nature of the Internet is best preserved by the establishment of regional and global standards that reflect its structure. In our view, the harmonisation of regulatory standards will safeguard fair competition because companies of small to medium size will be better able to shoulder a single compliance regime. Fragmentation benefits only the largest players. As Ireland is part of the EU's digital Single Market, it should consider delaying the enactment of provisions that may overlap with proposals currently under development in the context of the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act and similar initiatives at EU level.

With the proposals contained in the general scheme of the Bill, Ireland is setting a global benchmark. We contend that several of the sanctions, as currently envisaged, create an unhelpful international precedent. I refer specifically to the extent of proposed financial sanctions, the provision for service blocking and the criminal liability of senior management. Already, we see countries imposing punitive financial penalties to make the business environment difficult for platforms with unwelcome positions on freedom of expression. Service throttling and blocking are often used to limit citizen access to news, information and minority or opposition perspectives. Non-compliance is met with custodial threats for company employees. These actions challenge the foundational principles of a free Internet. We humbly ask that Ireland acknowledge this unfortunate trend and reflect its support for the open Internet in the sanction regime set out in the general scheme.

Finally, with respect to the proposed financial sanctions, it should be recognised that there is a large cohort of platforms for which sanctions of the order of those set out in the general scheme would be an existential concern. In the platform sector, content policy like that outlined is often competition policy by other means. The implementation of equitable sanction regimes is a key part of promoting fair competition. The alternative is a landscape too costly for all but the largest players. I look forward to discussing the Bill with committee members today.