Beyond Fake News: EU Grapples with Online Disinformation Challenge

The European Union’s battle against disinformation has intensified in recent years, with digital regulation becoming a focal point as countries across the continent face targeted campaigns during elections. According to Mariëlle Wijermars, Assistant Professor in Internet Governance at Maastricht University, the EU’s regulatory approach has evolved significantly since 2016, when Russian interference in the US elections and Brexit campaign served as a wake-up call.

“The Digital Services Act reflects responses to tactics pioneered by Russia,” Wijermars explains. “The EU’s regulatory intention accelerated only after Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and Brexit. This was the moment when disinformation as a regulatory issue started to be taken seriously.”

This realization, coupled with health-related misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, marked a turning point in policy awareness. European officials acknowledged that online platforms were vulnerable to manipulation and unlikely to adequately address these issues without external pressure.

Despite the Digital Services Act (DSA) taking effect over a year ago, Russian disinformation continues to target European elections, most recently in Romania and Germany. Wijermars cautions that it’s premature to judge the DSA’s effectiveness against such sophisticated threats.

“It’s an incredibly tricky problem,” she says. “When we think about disinformation, we often imagine blatant lies, but information manipulation is more nuanced. It can involve timing, amplification of certain content, or suppression of information. This makes formulating universal rules challenging without risking infringement on rights.”

The Romanian elections serve as a critical test case for the DSA’s effectiveness in protecting European democracies. “We will have to see in the coming months how effective the DSA is, whether it needs tailoring, and whether the will to enforce it is strong enough,” Wijermars notes.

The transatlantic relationship presents another significant challenge. Under the Trump administration, US-EU tensions have heightened regarding platform regulation. American authorities have begun portraying European efforts to combat disinformation as censorship, backing platform companies that resist EU regulations.

“The US administration, along with US platform companies, aggressively pushes back against EU rules,” Wijermars observes. “If the EU imposes fines on large platforms, what happens next?” This shift has prompted serious discussions within Europe about reducing dependencies on foreign technology companies.

The divergence in approaches stems from fundamentally different perspectives on freedom of expression online. For the EU, protecting this freedom requires intervention and content moderation to ensure pluralism in the face of interference attempts and commercial incentives that can distort online discourse.

Wijermars warns against assuming disinformation comes exclusively from foreign actors. “If you say it’s only a problem of foreign interference from hostile actors outside the EU, you’re not taking the problem seriously. We have to ask why these information operations succeed—because they amplify existing issues and tap into societal frictions.”

She highlights the need to look beyond content moderation to address underlying economic structures. “What always amazes me is our content-focused approach, while the advertisement and monetization infrastructure intensifies amplification, virality, and engagement. There is a need for alternative platforms that truly embed public values and move away from these perverse incentives.”

The rise of political influencer marketing introduces additional regulatory challenges. As these influencers gain prominence and potentially affect election outcomes, questions arise about appropriate oversight and disclosure requirements.

The EU’s unprecedented ban on Russian state media represents a significant regulatory step that warrants careful consideration. “Blocking Russian state media was deemed necessary and proportional, but it sets a precedent,” Wijermars explains. “What about Chinese state media? Or US commercial outlets critical of European politicians? Even if we agree with this action, we must acknowledge its significance.”

As disinformation tactics evolve—from coordinated troll farms to sophisticated AI-generated content—effective oversight becomes increasingly crucial. However, organizations conducting such monitoring face growing political challenges, including funding cuts and lawsuits designed to silence researchers and journalists.

The struggle against disinformation ultimately reflects a broader contest over the future of the internet and the values it will embody. For Europe, developing indigenous alternatives to dominant American platforms may be necessary to ensure digital spaces that align with European values and democratic principles.