In negotiating the Digital Services Act, EU lawmakers balanced tackling disinformation with protecting free speech. This “last-minute” proposal from the Commission to regulate technology platforms more strictly during crises undermines that balance.
Online disinformation – material spread with the intent to deceive – is a serious threat to the EU. It has contributed to many of the EU’s recent challenges: immigration panic, the rise of the far right and far left, Islamophobia, vaccine hesitancy and Brexit. Europe’s rivals, particularly Russia and China, use disinformation campaigns as a low-cost, low-risk method to foment dissent and promote their preferred narratives on these issues in the EU. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the latest online battleground. Platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram have been flooded with Putin’s lies about the ‘Nazification’ of Ukraine.
This deluge of disinformation comes as the EU is finalizing the Digital Services Act (DSA), a major new law designed to regulate online platforms, including social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, which are used to spread disinformation. The DSA forces big platforms to be more transparent and accountable for tackling disinformation. As lawmakers finalize the DSA, the European Commission has begun to insist that it needs stronger powers to direct platforms that tackle disinformation during crises. Such powers would undermine the careful compromises that lawmakers have already agreed to in the DSA – and risk worsening the platforms’ responses to disinformation.
In the EU, spreading false or misleading information is not generally illegal. Freedom of expression includes the right to express incorrect views. And the distinction between “fake news” and “legitimate opinion” is often contested. Despite the EU’s recent decision to ban Russian media outlets such as Russia Today and Sputnik from broadcasting in the EU, policymakers generally agree that simply banning disinformation is not a realistic or desirable option. Instead, the EU has sought to curb the impact of lies spread online in ways that preserve free speech. For example, the 2018 EU Action Plan against Disinformation focused on identifying disinformation, supporting independent media and fact-checkers, and promoting media literacy. The EU’s European External Action Service (EEAS) also created strategic communication divisions, known as StratCom Task Forces. The EU’s 2020 European Democracy Action Plan also created a framework for gathering evidence about foreign disinformation campaigns. As the Kremlin propagated lies about the invasion of Ukraine, for example, this evidence allowed the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to quickly name these strategies publicly and correct the false information.
Disinformation is hardly confined to the online world. The most polarized people are less likely to use social media – being older, they tend to rely on newspapers and TV. On the other hand, most social media users are exposed to a wide variety of opinions. But – perhaps because regulating foreign tech firms is easier than dealing with problems with some of the EU’s own media – lawmakers remain focused on the importance of online platforms. Although each has different acceptable use policies, online platforms usually do not ban all disinformation, both because identifying misleading material is difficult and to protect freedom of speech. More important is how disinformation is amplified. Instead of showing a chronological view of posts, most platforms now use personalized algorithms, designed to show users the most relevant and engaging content. Disinformation is often designed to exploit these algorithms, by being exciting to attract user engagement. ‘Troll factories’, such as the so-called Russian Internet Research Agency, also coordinate the actions of many different user accounts, tricking algorithms into believing that content is genuinely engaging, so that platforms will show that content to more users.
(Full article from CER, available in English)