Dear President,
Honourable Members,
Democracies today face an increasing challenge from interference.
And indeed, we have seen that social media is one of the vehicles used:
We have seen it during the past year in so called Doppelganger campaign, a Russian influence operation on Facebook and Instagram. We opened formal proceedings on that influence operation under the Digital Services Act.
We have seen it in last month, in Romania, where the Constitutional Court annulled Presidential elections after declassified documents alleged the existence of a coordinated manipulation campaign on TikTok. We opened formal proceedings on that against TikTok.
These are extraordinary events in the history of European democracy. Democracy is a founding value of our union. Free, fair and inclusive elections are at the core of democracy.
Interference in elections requires a powerful response.
The EU has the most advanced and powerful legal framework for online platforms, balancing freedom and responsibility – the Digital Services Act.
The DSA defines clear responsibilities for all very large online platform providers that provide services in the EU:
The platforms are obliged to conduct a risk assessment and to implement and effectively enforce mitigating measures, including on electoral processes and civic discourse.
They are also subject to independent audits.
Based on the risk assessment, platform providers may have to adjust algorithms, the design of their online interfact, and content moderation systems to better mitigate risks.
It cannot be said often enough: the DSA does not censor content. It creates efficient mechanisms for the removal of illegal content, defined by other EU or national law, such as illegal hate speech. Because what is illegal offline is also illegal online.
But beyond supporting compliance with such limited prohibitions, the DSA ensures that aAnyone is entitled to express their opinion – as protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The DSA contains strong safeguards to protect freedom of expression of platforms’ users.
Transparency is a core principle of the DSA, giving greater agency to better inform citizens, civil society organizations and others in the DSA ecosystem.
The DSA obliges platform providers to be transparent about their terms and conditions and to set out the main parameters that underly their recommender systems.
The reasons for their content moderation decisions are registered in a public database and they must publish bi-annual reports on their content moderation practices.
The users must also have the possibility to ‘opt out’ of being profiled for their recommender system, giving users the option of alternative social media feeds.
Transparency is a vital precondition for accountability in democracy, where a facts-based debate is combined with strong third-party scrutiny and cooperation with journalists, civil society organizations, fact-checkers and independent researchers.
They play a crucial role in providing accountability and scrutiny of platforms’ mechanisms.
In this context, the Commission has already opened cases against very large online platforms on publicly available access to data. The Commission is also preparing a delegated act on data access for researchers for the more far-reaching data access, which it consulted on with stakeholders in the last few months.
Given the many elections taking place last year and this year, the Commission issued guidelines in April 2024 for the very large online platforms and search engines on the measures they have to take to mitigate risks for electoral integrity.
Rest assured, the Commission takes the enforcement of the DSA very seriously. We have already taken decisive steps.
You may have seen that since the entry into application of the DSA, 25 very large platforms and search engines were designated, and no less than 10 proceedings were opened:
- 1 against X
- 3 against TikTok
- 1 against AliExpress
- 2 each against Meta’s Facebook and Instagram,
- and 1 against Temu
- in one case, preliminary findings were adopted, and one was already closed.
Let me say this clearly: The compliance teams are working at full speed.
For example, in recent days the Commission has:
- Requested X to provide internal documentation on its recommender systems and any recent changes made to it, by 15 February 2025.
- Issued a ‘retention order’ to X requiring the platform provider to preserve internal documents and information regarding future changes to the design and functioning of its recommender algorithms.
- Issued a request for access to certain of X’s commercial Application Program Interfaces (APIs), these are technical interfaces to its content that allow direct fact-finding on content moderation and virality of accounts.
- It is important to note that strong and timely enforcement of the DSA requires careful detective work by expert teams, solid evidence and decisions that stand up in court.
During my hearing, I said that I will make sure that we will double the number of colleagues working on the DSA by the end of 2025 – to a team to 200 staff.
The Commission does not work on the DSA in isolation, especially in matters related to election integrity which require efforts both at EU and at national level, and across institutions and policies.
We work closely with all Digital Services Coordinators in the European Board for Digital Services, including through working group on “Integrity of the information space”, and also directly with those Digital Services Coordinators of Member States which have upcoming elections in their countries.
More generally, we also work within the framework of the European Cooperation Network on elections, bringing together national authorities dealing with electoral matters.
The Network will hold a strategic discussion on 5 and 6 February, on issues such as the equality of opportunities among political parties and candidates, elections integrity and risk-management in electoral contexts.
The DSA is a responsibility – based system. It provides for Codes of Conduct, to help platforms to meet their obligations.
This is why this week we assessed and confirmed the suitability of the Code of Conduct on Illegal Hate Speech Online under the DSA. This will strengthen the response against all illegal online hate speech, as defined by different EU and Member State laws. So that hate speech flagged is assessed in 24 hours and removed if necessary.
Focusing on the future, I am also committed to move ahead with the assessment of the Code of Practice on Disinformation with a view of issuing an opinion, integrating also this Code into the DSA framework.
As part of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, a broad range of signatories agreed on taking on commitments and targeted measures to fight disinformation. Meta, Google, Microsoft and TikTok are already signatories of this Code.
In view of the threat that disinformation poses to our societies I expect strong commitments from platform providers to continue implementing the Code, with appropriate measures to put this into practice.
Let me assure you that I am taking this very seriously.
When it comes to elections, the Rapid Response System of under the Code has proven to be very effective – showing the important contribution that independent fact-checkers and civil society can make. They can quickly alert platforms about time sensitive content that can pose a threat to the integrity of elections. I count on the signatories and on the platform providers to make sure that this is applied to all upcoming elections.
Protecting democracy from the threats it faces today requires a comprehensive response.
We are now preparing the new European Democracy Shield to address the most severe risks to democracy in the EU.
The Shield will aim to combat foreign information manipulation, interference and disinformation. It aims to strengthen the EU’s ability to detect, analyse and proactively counter threats. It will also address domestic threats to democracy.
It will also reinforce the integrity and fairness of elections, strengthen democratic checks and balances, and develop societal preparedness and resilience.
The Democracy Shield would also cover the external dimension of threats, responding to foreign interference. This requires strong collaborative efforts with Member States and international partners.
Most importantly for the Democracy Shield to achieve its objectives, it will need to be built on a whole-of-society approach. Placing citizens at the heart of democracy and reinforcing their trust in democratic processes will be a key part of the Shield.
This will be carried out in full respect of fundamental rights and democratic values, including freedom of expression and association, and the right to participate in public life. Under no circumstance will our actions result in the curbing of any of these rights or in any censorship.
We do not start this work from scratch. The Shield will build on the work already done on the European Democracy Action Plan and the Defence of Democracy Package. Commissioner McGrath is leading the work, with my close collaboration and working together also with other members of the College.
Soon, we will launch consultations to shape the upcoming Shield. I am eager to hear the valuable contributions that the Parliament will bring to this important initiative, especially the new special committee on the Democracy Shield.
More generally, the Commission continues to be very active in supporting democracy in the EU, including efforts to ensure the integrity of electoral processes, support media freedom and pluralism and fight disinformation, as well as support and empower citizens and civil society.
As regards to elections it is important to note that the organisation and the conduct of elections is a competence of the Member States, in line with their constitutional and legislative frameworks and with their international obligations and EU law. Competent national authorities and courts have the primary responsibility to ensure the respect of these rules.
The Commission also supports greater transparency and accountability, by helping to prevent and expose hostile attempts to interfere with democratic processes, including with elections.
In this context the new EU regulation on the transparency of political advertising, which will be fully applicable in October this year, will play an important role.
The proposed Directive on interest representation activities on behalf of third countries should also be rapidly adopted by the co-legislators in order to further enlarge our toolbox.
I want to assure you that the Commission is extremely committed to protect European democracy and civic discourse. The Commission is fully dedicated to use all the tools at its disposal to defend our democracies.
I remain fully available to hear your views as we work together to achieve this common goal. Thank you for your attention.
Dear President, honourable Members,
Thank you for this lively debate, and for your valuable contributions.
This Commission, and I personally, are fully committed to promoting and protecting democracy across the EU.
The DSA has given the Commission the tool needed for a high level of responsibility by providers of online platforms, combined with robust oversight. I will continue applying this critical tool, together with the national Digital Services Coordinators, in an effective and accountable way.
In this context, I vow to energetically advance with the cases under the DSA and, while respecting due process, come to a conclusion as early as legally possible in the open proceedings.
The Commission will present an ambitious approach in the Democracy Shield, with a comprehensive, all of society approach to face the multiple threats to our democracy.
I look forward to continuing this exchange with you. Thank you.
Elon Musk’s political interference in UK and German politics, as well as Meta’s decision to remove fact checking in the US, not only illustrate the danger that our democracies face, but are also signs of things to come. What, not so long ago, seemed to be an opportunity to connect people and strengthen our societies has today become a dangerous weapon for promoting hate and misinformation in the hands of Big Tech oligarchs, who only look after their profit.
Contrary to what Meta or X’s CEOs have recently claimed, EU tech legislation aims at finding a balance between protecting democratic processes and preserving fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression. Legislating does not mean censoring; rather it guarantees that the rights and freedoms of every single citizen are protected when it comes to preserving their privacy, protecting them against online harassment or misinformation.
Today, at the initiative of the Socialists and Democrats, the members of the European Parliament are debating the role of EU’s tech legislation – the Digital Services Act – to protect our democracies against foreign interference and the power of Big Tech oligarchs.*
“Electoral interference and manipulated social media algorithms are a direct threat to our European values. In recent months, we have seen how Elon Musk and his social network X have become the main promoter for the far right by supporting Donald Trump and Alice Weidel’s AfD party through fake news and hate messages. We have also witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checking programs on Meta as an act of complicity with lies and manipulation.
“The Commission’s silence in the face of this threat is unacceptable. Inaction is not neutrality; it is complicity. As the European Union, we have to live up to what our citizens demand from us: to be an example of determination and leadership. It is not enough to legislate or to denounce. We must ensure the effective application of our rules and we must sanction those who break the rules.
“Throughout the past mandate we have developed the Digital Services Regulation – an EU law that provides us with clear tools, including significant fines, to fight disinformation, hate speech or illegal content online. It is time to implement it without any delay! At the same time, we must boost European social networks and we must urgently adopt the Directive on liability in the field of Artificial Intelligence.
“We do not accept Mark Zuckerberg’s accusations of censorship. Contrary to what Big Tech oligarchs claim, the freedom of expression is a pillar of our democracies, and should not be a playground for manipulation and hate as they are trying to promote. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to misinform and it cannot justify any lie aiming to destroy societies and instigating divisions. History has shown us the dangers of propaganda and manipulation. It was not so long ago that the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century used massive lies to justify wars, genocides, and oppression. For the Socialists and Democrats, the truth is not negotiable.”
* EP plenary debate: “The need to enforce the Digital Services Act to protect democracy on social media platforms including against foreign interference and biased algorithms”
ECR Group Co-President Nicola Procaccini delivered a strong rebuke to centre-left calls for greater intervention in online platforms, warning that the Digital Services Act (DSA) must not be transformed into a tool of political censorship.
Speaking in the European Parliament, he described demands for stricter enforcement of the DSA as an excessive reaction to the left’s declining dominance over political discourse on social media and the waning influence of mainstream progressives
“When the left dominated social media, deciding who could speak and what could be said, they saw no need for debates like this. Now, as their grip slips, they suddenly demand action. The Digital Services Act must be a tool for freedom, not for imposing ideological bias”, Mr Procaccini stated.
Thank you, President, and Vice-President Virkkunen, for your presence. Frankly, this debate comes at a rather suspicious moment. The fact that it was primarily driven by the left, and the remarks we have just heard from the socialist colleague, only reinforce that suspicion. My suspicion is that the left, at every level, is struggling to cope with the loss of its political dominance over social media platforms.
When you exercised suffocating control over political debate through social networks—dictating who could speak and what could be said—you did not feel the need for a debate like this.
By contrast, we European conservatives did. And we saw the need for a tool like the DSA. To protect children from the dangers of the internet, first and foremost. To defend freedom of speech, which was being outrageously suppressed. That is why the vast majority of us voted in favour. Because we found it incredible that Twitter could shut down the account of a democratically elected president, Donald Trump, while allowing Ayatollah Khamenei to threaten the world with impunity through his tweets. We wanted to ensure that users, if unjustly deprived of their freedom of expression, had the right to appeal to a real judge—not to a “fact-checker.”
Unlike you, we do not claim to possess the truth; we are simply passionate seekers of it. And we know that truth can only be found through open debate between differing opinions—something that must always be safeguarded, both online and in the real world.
The DSA is a tool, and like any tool, it must be used correctly: without bias, without abuse, and without enforcing a singular ideology. The truth is that for nearly two hundred years—since the time of Alexis de Tocqueville—the story has always been the same: we stand on the side of freedom, while you stand on the other.
