Expert Meeting to Combat Disinformation and Interference

The European Commission explained how it oversees the 25 major social media platforms to keep European users safe. The commission looks at how the platforms moderate content and what they do to maintain user trust. It also considers fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and assembly. Protecting children and democratic discourse takes precedence.

The Authority for Consumers and Markets indicated that it collaborates with users when it comes to reporting harmful or illegal content on social media. The ACM can designate organizations with specific expertise as trusted flaggers. Online platforms must prioritize reports from these flaggers. The collaborative platform of digital regulators includes twelve organizations and has close contact with the European Commission. This way, social media platforms are actively reminded of their obligations, and information is provided to civil society organizations about reporting harmful content.

The AIVD pointed out the effects of the war at the edges of Europe: countries are also spreading disinformation. The Netherlands, like all other EU member states, is a target of hybrid attacks, often from Russia. The country has many possibilities, from physical sabotage to cyber attacks. The Netherlands is resilient against disinformation due to its pluralistic political system.

The Electoral Council discussed its role in ensuring the reliability of elections. Votes are counted both digitally and manually. The quality of the Dutch electoral process is highly regarded, yet the Electoral Council aims to further improve it. The Electoral Council can only signal political disinformation and foreign interference. The Ministry of the Interior is responsible for combating this. Electoral councils worldwide are experimenting with responding effectively and convincingly to disinformation, and the Electoral Council advised learning from these experiences.

After the introductions, there was about half an hour for answering questions. Committee members asked whether the AIVD and the European Commission have sufficient tools and guidelines to tackle disinformation: which measures are most missed? Senators also found the definition issue important: what is meant by disinformation, and who determines what disinformation is? Should people who unknowingly contribute to disinformation also be punished?

The speakers emphasized that they do not determine what is or is not disinformation. Moderation is the responsibility of the platforms. The Electoral Council cited examples of factual inaccuracies surrounding the electoral process, such as reports of closed polling stations, false addresses of polling stations, but refrains from making judgments about political expressions. The AIVD further emphasized that no research has been conducted on people who unknowingly contribute to disinformation. Disinformation is seen as harmful if it damages the public good or undermines democracy.

The European Commission provided a practical example from the Romanian elections, where more than 100 influencers were paid to promote a candidate on the social media platform TikTok. For the European Commission, it is important that social media platforms take action themselves. In cases of disinformation that is harmful to democracy and safety, these platforms must take action. The ultimate penalty is a fine of 6% of global turnover, which is a sanction that companies of this size will notice.

You can watch the expert meeting here.