“Disinformation is a threat to our democracies” is a statement with which virtually every political group in the European Parliament agrees. Many political statements have been made on the subject calling for more to be done to counter disinformation, especially since the Russian attack on Ukraine.
As part of that effort, the EU recently adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), the legislation that many hope will provide the necessary regulatory framework to – at least partially – tackle the disinformation challenge. Unfortunately, there is a danger we might end up not seeing the positive results that the DSA promises to bring.
There are attempts to undermine the DSA with exemptions for media content in the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), currently on the EU legislators’ table. This contains a measure which would effectively reverse the DSA provisions and prevent platforms like Twitter and Facebook from moderating content coming from anyone claiming to be a ‘media’. A very bad idea that was already, after much debate, rejected in the DSA.
Let’s see how this would work in practice. If any self-declared media writes that “The European Parliament partners with Bill Gates and George Soros to insert 5G surveillance chips into vaccines”, and this article is published on Twitter or Facebook, for instance, the platforms will first have to contact the media. They would then wait for 24 or 48 hours before possibly adding a fact-check, or not being able to do it all if some of the most recent amendments go through.
Those who have encountered such disinformation know that the first 24 hours are critical. As the old adage goes, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots”. Enabling such a back-and-forth exchange will only benefit the spread of disinformation, which can be further amplified by algorithms and become almost unstoppable.
Many journalists and fact-checkers have complained in the past that platforms were not doing enough to reduce the visibility of such viral disinformation. The Commission itself mentions that “Global online platforms act as gateways to media content, with business models that tend to disintermediate access to media services and amplify polarising content and disinformation.” Why on Earth would the EU then encourage further polarisation and disinformation by preventing content moderation?
This is not only a question of how such a carveout would benefit bogus media outlets. Some mainstream news sources with solid reputations and visibility can make mistakes, or are often the prime targets of those running disinformation campaigns. And quite successfully, as the recent example from the acclaimed investigations by Forbidden Stories has shown. In Hungary and Poland, state media that disseminate propaganda, in some cases even pro-Russian narratives, would be exempted from content moderation as well.
It might be counterintuitive, but the role of the media in disinformation and influence operations is huge. EU DisInfoLab sees it virtually in every single investigation that we do.
This loophole in the EMFA will make it hard if not impossible for the Commission to enforce the DSA against the biggest platforms. Potentially we would have to wait for the Court of Justice to solve the conflict between the two laws: the DSA mandating platforms to do content moderation and the EMFA legally preventing them from doing it. This would not be a good look for the EU legislature and until a decision of the Court comes, what will platforms do? They will likely stop moderating anything that comes close to being a ‘media’ just to avoid difficulties and costs.
We really don’t need any media exemption. There is no evidence to suggest that media content over-moderation is a systemic issue, and the impact assessment by the Commission does not suggest that either. With the DSA, Europe has just adopted horizontal content moderation rules where media freedom and plurality are at the core. Surely we should rather give a chance for the DSA to work, instead of saying it already failed before it is even applicable.
Media exemption will not help media freedom and plurality, on the contrary. It will enable industrial-scale disinformation production, reduce visibility for reputable media and the trust of society in it even more. Last year, Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates and journalists, called on the EU to ensure that no media exemption be included in any tech or media legislation in their 10-point plan to address our information crisis. It was supported by more than 100 civil society organisations.
MEPs and member states working on the EMFA must see the risks of disinformation and other harmful content that any carveout for media would create. The decision they are facing is clear: either flood Europe with harmful content or prioritise the safety of online users by strongly enforcing horizontal content moderation rules in the DSA.
