Democracy and Disinformation: Competing Perspectives in the European Union

In a revealing study published in the Journal of Common Market Studies, researchers have uncovered significant divisions among Members of the European Parliament regarding disinformation and its regulation. While lawmakers broadly agree that disinformation poses a problem, they fundamentally disagree on its nature and appropriate countermeasures.

“We can see a superficial consensus that disinformation is a problem, but beneath the surface there is considerable disagreement about what it means and how it should be managed,” explains Sara Wissén, a doctoral candidate in political science and co-author of the study.

The research team analyzed 334 statements from European Parliament plenary debates concerning the Digital Services Act (DSA) between 2023 and 2025. Their findings reveal not a unified position but rather four distinct democratic perspectives that shape how MEPs approach the disinformation challenge.

The first perspective, described as deliberative, emphasizes the importance of shared facts and open discussion in democratic societies. Under this view, disinformation represents a significant threat because it undermines the possibility of collective, evidence-based decision-making essential for democracy to function properly.

In contrast, those holding a classical liberal perspective warn that regulatory efforts targeting disinformation risk restricting freedom of expression more severely than disinformation itself harms democratic processes. This group prioritizes protecting speech rights over content control.

A third group approaches the issue from a pluralist perspective, highlighting how algorithm-driven platforms create power imbalances by amplifying certain voices while marginalizing others, particularly disadvantaging vulnerable groups in society.

Finally, some MEPs adopt what researchers term a populist perspective, viewing disinformation regulations as tools wielded by elites to silence oppositional voices and maintain control over public discourse.

These competing worldviews directly influence the policy solutions that parliamentarians advocate, from implementing stricter legislation to calls for completely dismantling the DSA framework.

“Views on disinformation are fundamentally tied to how democracy itself is understood. That is why the disagreement becomes so profound,” notes Linus Wahlberg, another doctoral candidate in political science who co-authored the study.

Previous analysis of digital governance has often framed tensions as primarily existing between the European Union and the United States, especially regarding European regulations targeting American technology companies. However, this research highlights that significant disagreements also exist within the EU itself.

“The internal European disagreement surrounding the tension between freedom and security has largely been overlooked. Our study shows that it is central to understanding how policy is shaped,” Wissén points out.

These findings carry significant implications for the development of digital regulation policy. As debates around online content moderation intensify globally, understanding these fundamental differences becomes increasingly important for regulatory bodies, civil society organizations, and businesses operating in the digital space.

The researchers emphasize that discussions about disinformation are not primarily factual disagreements about what constitutes truth, but rather reflect deeper divisions about democratic values and governance principles.

“If we want to find sustainable solutions, we must understand the different conceptions of democracy underlying these positions,” Wahlberg suggests.

These internal divisions may also impact the EU’s ability to act as a unified global force in digital governance. The European Union has positioned itself as a leading regulatory power in the digital realm, with initiatives like the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act serving as potential templates for other jurisdictions.

“If Members of the European Parliament do not share a fundamental understanding of democracy, this may affect the EU’s ability to export coherent norms for digital governance and, ultimately, how the EU is perceived as an international actor,” Wahlberg concludes.

As the implementation of the DSA continues, these competing democratic visions will likely continue to shape both the enforcement of current regulations and the development of future digital governance frameworks within the European Union and beyond.