How Messaging Platforms Became Disinformation’s New Frontier

Private messaging platforms have emerged as critical battlegrounds for disinformation campaigns, yet remain largely overlooked by regulatory frameworks focused primarily on public social media. This regulatory blind spot continues even as evidence mounts of messaging apps being weaponized to undermine democratic processes worldwide.

Recent elections in Brazil revealed how manipulated political content spread rapidly through WhatsApp groups during the 2024 municipal campaigns. In Ukraine, officials have described Telegram as serving dual roles—providing essential emergency communications while simultaneously functioning as a channel for Russian disinformation operations. Similar patterns have been documented in Lebanon and other conflict zones.

These concerns prompted the Forum on Information and Democracy to release a comprehensive analysis of the governance gap surrounding messaging platforms. The year-long investigation, co-chaired by Luxembourg and Ukraine with support from the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, brought together government authorities, civil society organizations, and researchers to develop new approaches to the problem.

The core challenge stems from the evolution of messaging services beyond their original design. What began as platforms for private one-to-one or small group exchanges now incorporate broadcast channels, massive group chats with thousands of participants, business messaging systems, advertising capabilities, and AI-powered features. This transformation has created hybrid spaces where information can reach mass audiences while retaining the perceived intimacy and trust of private communication.

“Most regulations addressing disinformation fail to account for the hybrid nature of messaging spaces and generally exclude them from their scope,” the report notes. Existing frameworks typically focus either on clearly illegal content like terrorism and child sexual abuse material, or on disinformation circulating on platforms considered “public.” This leaves a significant regulatory gap where harmful but legal content proliferates through messaging services.

A survey of twelve jurisdictions found that the UK Online Safety Act stands nearly alone in regulating “user-to-user services” and imposing duties to address “foreign interference” and “false information.” However, even this legislation leaves considerable ambiguity regarding how messaging platforms with encryption should comply without compromising security features.

The report outlines several key recommendations to address these challenges. First, it proposes a feature-based regulatory approach rather than categorizing entire platforms as a single type of service. This would attach different obligations to specific platform features based on their reach, discoverability, access controls, and amplification capabilities.

“A one-to-one encrypted chat does not pose the same systemic risks as a searchable broadcast channel or a mass-forwarding feature,” the report states. The European Commission has taken a step in this direction by designating WhatsApp Channels as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act.

The second recommendation emphasizes preserving encryption for private communications. The report argues that protecting encryption does not require abandoning oversight entirely. Instead, transparency requirements and content governance should be limited to non-encrypted or public-facing functionalities, where platforms already exercise control.

Finally, the report calls for initiatives to strengthen societal resilience and platform design improvements that empower users. It highlights Ukraine’s “Filter” project, which integrates formal education with fact-checking partnerships, and Ireland’s Media Literacy Ireland Network as models for building public awareness.

Platform companies are encouraged to develop in-app tools that enhance user awareness, including access to fact-checking resources and clearer distinctions between different communication features.

As messaging platforms continue to evolve, the report concludes that effective governance requires a collaborative approach. Governments must provide regulatory clarity by defining what constitutes public, semi-public, and private communication online. Platforms must create more transparency about their features, enable meaningful user choices, and strengthen anti-abuse safeguards.

With messaging platforms now central to democratic discourse worldwide, the challenge ahead lies in developing frameworks that reflect how these services actually function today—without compromising the privacy and security benefits that encryption provides.