The Struggle for Free Speech: Social Media and the EU Digital Services Act

Free speech is back. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has surprised the online world by announcing the termination of fact-checking services on Meta-owned social media platforms, consisting of pioneer Facebook, the dominant Instagram, and the ‘X-killer’ Threads. Zuckerberg has announced a shift to community notes, resembling Musk-owned X, to avoid the bias of third-party fact-checkers and the lamenting pressure received from the Biden Administration to remove some COVID-related content from its platforms. This is likely enabled by the ‘end of censorship’ proclaimed by US President Donald Trump in his inauguration speech, attended by multiple tech giants, Mark included.

But how would the end of third-party checking benefit both Zuckerberg and Trump? For the former, the pandemic has likely been a wake-up call. As reported by POLITICO, social media moderation sank into chaos in 2020, as platforms renounced moderators to turn to algorithms. The result was catastrophic: despite a sharp increase in removed content, partially due to the extension of automated TikTok-style moderation to non-English posts, flagged hate speech posts were much less likely to be removed due to staff shortages. 

Following X’s example, Meta has nonetheless announced the layoff of 5% of its workforce, finding in community notes a cheaper alternative. For the latter, looser censorship will allow the President to post without restrictions, unlike his first mandate, during which his content had often been subject to controversial moderation. Moreover, despite recognizing the existence of bubbles for all political orientations, studies find US Republicans much more engaged in political content. This might partially explain Trump’s efforts to reverse the TikTok ban, albeit unsuccessful. Therefore, it may seem sensible for Zuckerberg to pander towards the new President to obtain favourable conditions. However, social media do not operate in a (US) vacuum. In fact, the European Union has often been an element of disturbance in the name of consumer protection. Through the Digital Services Act, Brussels aims to create a safe digital space and a level playing field. It recognizes Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok as very large online platforms, making them fall under tougher restrictions to follow. Let’s focus on how the Union keeps tech giants in check. 

Meta’s fact checking regulation used to rely on the employment of third-party fact-checkers, certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Their task was to flag content based on context, or the alteration of the truth. When trying to share an already flagged content, a popup would remind the user of the post’s credibility, with the exception of opinion content — granted it was based on true facts. This process has revealed itself to be particularly cumbersome during the COVID pandemic. Recently, Zuckerberg denounced the Biden Administration for exerting governmental pressure on Meta’s moderation practices, forcing the removal of specific COVID-related content, including satire. Mark may have brought up the issue to reject accusations of having favoured the Democrats with his donations during the 2020 elections, and demoting content about Hunter Biden. Another polemic regarded Instagram’s political phase-out, due to which users were not  suggested political content from accounts they did not already follow. This move received backlash due to the soft shadow ban Meta was imposing on emerging voices during a crucial worldwide election year. In particular, the EU has launched an investigation in the name of voters’ protection from misinformation in the upcoming European elections. Calling for a more efficient apparatus for voter protection, the Commission considers the demotion of political content as a further violation of transparency laws, as Meta platforms are plagued by misinformation and a lack of user-friendly mechanisms of content flagging. Reopening the gates of political content, Meta has announced the dismissal of moderators and a shift to community notes, which they claim to solve the over-enforcement of rules by biased fact-checkers and overcome societal and political pressures towards polarization. Members of the S&D fraction in the European Parliament, however, have contested this claim, echoing the European Federation of Journalists and Reporters without Borders’s concerns about the spread of misinformation and divisive content (as it happens on X), and asking the Commission to launch an investigation. Given the lengthy proceedings, we could have a look at how the Commission reacted on X's decision to introduce community notes.

X had first advertised community notes, open for all to use, as a bottom-up approach to content moderation. They would then appear on the specific posts, reflecting the diversity of perspectives behind the contributors. Musk has praised this tool as the key to ultimate transparency and free speech, but the EU was of the opposite advice. Opening formal proceedings against the former Twitter, the Commission has accused the platform of disseminating illegal content, deeming community notes incapable of mitigating societal risks around interferences in electoral processes and political discourse, aided by deceptive blue checks. While being able to identify breaches on time, the Union’s weak spot is found in the slow nature of proceedings, with Meta and X yet to receive a ruling. While text-based platforms may be easier to manage, video-based harmful discourse may turn out to be uncontrollable under current means of surveillance. This is exemplified in the troubled case of the 2024 Romanian presidential elections. 

In the past, TikTok had already shown fragilities while handling the pandemic and climate change. During COVID, the platform attempted to tackle misinformation by providing users searching for COVID-related information with a direct link to the WHO’s website, followed by a built-in page within the app. Despite attaching vaccine information onto every COVID-related post, misinformation carried on. Another issue emerged with global warming, as the platform is filled with climate deniers. Aware of these shaky foundations, Russia allegedly exploited the platform to push the presidential campaign of the anti-EU, anti-NATO independent candidate Calin Georgescu. Former member of a far-right party, Georgescu has always trailed behind in polls and used TikTok as the main tool of his campaign. In a shocking turn of events, exit polls announced Georgescu’s victory in the first round, sparking EU-wide tensions. With a historical move, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the results, delaying the call to the ballots to 4 May 2025. The reaction from Brussels was immediate: the Commission invoked the Digital Services Act to open formal proceedings against TikTok, citing the need for accountability in enabling foreign interference during elections. This is said to have ultimately jeopardized the integrity of the electoral process, leading to an investigation on recommended mechanisms and political advertisement. Despite these efforts, however, the situation remains at a stalemate, signalling the Union’s issues with the enforcement of its regulations. 

When looking into how many punitive measures have actually been imposed, many view the Union as incapable of acting on its intentions. Despite solid suspicions of recurring serious breaches, no platform has been issued a ruling yet. This is symptomatic of the EU’s reluctance to establish proactive policies, leading to the struggle for a late solution while most of the damage has already been suffered by the European electorate. The pervasiveness of US American and Chinese control on European public discourse platforms threatens to hinder the emergence of new political voices and issues which, to acquire any salience, will necessarily have to mimic foreign counterparts to fit into recommendation mechanisms built for other parts of the world. At the moment, European-based social media platforms are a distant memory and a blurred goal, leaving Europe vulnerable to others’ (geo)political aims.