Regulating content moderation on social media to safeguard freedom of expression
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 30 January 2025 (8th sitting) (see Doc. 16089, report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education
and Media, rapporteur: Ms Valentina Grippo). Text
adopted by the Assembly on 30 January 2025 (8th sitting).
1. Social media have become an online
agora where users come to exercise their right to freedom of expression
and information in many ways. These platforms enable users to post
their own content and enjoy the content posted by others, get informed
and inform others, and communicate with other users.
2. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right;
social media are legally obliged to remove any illegal content when
they become or are made aware of its existence on their services.
Moreover, it is incumbent upon social media to combat the dissemination
of harmful content.
3. Social media companies are also bearers of fundamental rights,
such as the right to property and freedom of enterprise, and therefore
they have a say in how users can use their services and what content
they can post. The content moderation rules included in their terms
and conditions allow for social media companies to demote, demonetise,
restrict access to or remove a concrete content item because of
its incompatibility with their terms and conditions. In extreme
cases, social media companies can suspend or even terminate a user’s account.
Their terms and conditions have a contractual character, and users
are bound by them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
4. The major social media companies, mainly owned by entities
based in the United States, have a global reach; their content moderation
policies and commercial or ideological decisions about content to
promote or demote may have an immense influence on public opinion
and on choices of billions of people. It is, nevertheless, incumbent
upon them to respect the laws of the country in which they provide
their services.
5. Given the potential impact on societal behaviours and on the
proper functioning of democratic processes that the information
and communication flow on social media has, it is incumbent upon
the State to establish the fundamental principles and institutional
framework that may correct the power imbalance resulting from the unequal
contractual relationship and ensure the effective protection of
the right to freedom of expression.
6. It is imperative, however, that public regulation of content
moderation does not have a chilling effect on free speech and is
not intended to impose the views of the political power in place
and censorship on opinions or ideas which may conflict with the
ruling majority’s vested interests. Moreover, national regulations
should not place undue burdens on social media, which could result
in an overzealous approach to content removal. These regulations
and their implementation must uphold freedom of expression and carefully
assess the necessity of any restrictions.
7. The risk of restrictive content moderation policies is increased
by the lack of transparency in their implementation. Social media
have been accused of a practice called “shadow banning” whereby
they delist or demote content dealing with controversial issues
without notifying the user in question, making that content invisible
to other users. This devious, hidden practice should be forbidden:
it deprives users of the possibility to defend effectively their
right to freedom of expression.
8. The press and the media in general use social media as a platform
for disseminating information to the public. It is therefore essential
that content moderation practices do not unduly affect media and
journalistic content that respects professional standards and the
national regulatory framework.
9. Content moderation is increasingly carried out by automated
means. Artificial intelligence tools are much more efficient than
human moderators in processing at a high speed the colossal amount
of content circulating on the web and identifying prohibited content.
They lack to date, however, the capacity to fully understand the subtleties
of human interaction (humour, parody, satire, etc.) and to assess
the content in its context.
10. For this reason, human moderators must remain the cornerstone
of any content moderation system and be responsible for making decisions
in cases where automated systems are not up to the task. However, human
moderation can be biased and lead to inconsistencies among countries
due to cultural differences. It is therefore imperative to establish
clear and comprehensive standards and to guarantee appropriate training,
to ensure that all moderators have the requisite knowledge of both
the applicable legislation and the company’s internal guidelines,
as well as of the language and the context of the country from which
the content originates. However, in the event of a military conflict
between two countries, moderators from one country party to the conflict
should not moderate content originating from the other.
11. Regrettably, despite their fundamental role, the working conditions
of human moderators are inadequate. These moderators are overexposed
to disturbing content that can cause them serious mental health
problems and they suffer from restrictions on their freedom to speak
out about the problems they encounter at work.
12. Generative artificial intelligence tools allow synthetic content
that is virtually indistinguishable from human-generated content
to be produced. Such content can be highly misleading, be a tool
of disinformation and manipulation, and instigate hatred and discrimination,
among other dangers. It is essential that users are made aware of
content that appears to be genuine, but which is in fact not. In
this regard, watermarking techniques are particularly beneficial
but have several drawbacks, including their lack of interoperability
among social media services.
13. An independent assessment of the terms and conditions, content
moderation policies and their enforcement, with a view to identifying
and promoting best practices, could help to ensure their consistency with
principles which uphold a human rights-based approach to content
moderation.
14. The establishment of clear and transparent rules for conflict
resolution is essential to ensure the protection of users and to
minimise the risk of being subjected to a potentially biased decision
by the social media company, or of being forced to pursue costly
legal action against a multinational corporation with enormous financial
resources at its disposal.
15. The establishment of independent out-of-court dispute settlement
bodies to assess content moderation decisions may prove beneficial
in enhancing compliance with fundamental rights. Collaboration between
social media companies in establishing such bodies could also facilitate
dispute resolution.
16. As stated by the Parliamentary Assembly in its
Resolution 2281 (2019) “Social
media: social threads or threats to human rights?”, social media
companies should employ algorithms that promote the diversity of sources,
topics and views, guarantee the quality of information available
and thereby reduce the risk of “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers”.
17. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on
the Council of Europe member States to review their legislation
to better safeguard the right to freedom of expression on social
media. In this respect, States should in particular:
17.1 require that social media uphold
users’ fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, in their
content moderation policy and implementation practices;
17.2 require that social media platforms provide justification
for any measure taken to moderate content provided by the press
or media service providers prior to its implementation and allow
them an opportunity to reply within an appropriate time frame;
17.3 in co-operation with the press or media organisations,
implement a system of verification of media and journalist accounts,
together with robust mechanisms to protect them from online harassment, hacks
and fraud, and develop social media guidelines for press or media
organisations on the publication of information on sensitive issues,
with a view to avoiding unnecessary moderation restrictions on this type
of content;
17.4 provide for minimum standards for the working conditions
of human moderators, including a requirement of adequate training
to carry out their often stressful tasks and of access to proper psychological
support and mental healthcare when needed;
17.5 sign and ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention
on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule
of Law (CETS No. 225) and adopt or maintain measures to ensure that adequate
transparency and oversight requirements tailored to the specific
contexts and risks are in place to meet the challenges of the identification
of content generated by artificial intelligence systems;
17.6 require that content generated by artificial intelligence
is disclosed as such by those initially posting it and that social
media implement technical solutions allowing for such content to
be easily identified by users, and encourage collaboration between
social media companies to ensure the interoperability of watermarking
techniques for content generated by artificial intelligence;
17.7 require that out-of-court dispute settlement bodies, when
established, are independent and impartial, have the necessary expertise,
are easily accessible and operate according to clear and fair rules,
with certification of these requirements by the competent national
regulatory authority;
17.8 promote, within the Internet Governance Forum and the
European Dialogue on Internet Governance, reflection on the possibility
for the internet community to develop, through a collaborative and,
where appropriate, multistakeholder process, an external evaluation
and auditing system aimed at determining whether algorithms are
unbiased and respect the right to freedom of expression, and a “seal of
good practices” which could be awarded to social media whose algorithms
are designed to reduce the risk of “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers”
and to foster an ideologically cross-cutting, yet safe, user experience.
18. The Assembly calls on social media companies to avoid measures
that unnecessarily restrict the freedom of expression of users.
These companies should, in particular:
18.1 directly incorporate principles of fundamental rights
law, and in particular freedom of expression, into their terms and
conditions;
18.2 use caution when moderating content that is not obviously
illegal;
18.3 provide users with terms and conditions that are readily
accessible, clear and informative on the types of content that are
permissible on their services and the consequences for non-compliance,
and which are understandable to the wide span of users notwithstanding
differing levels of digital literacy and reading proficiency;
18.4 notify users without undue delay of any moderation action
taken on their content, providing a comprehensive account of the
rationale behind the decision, accompanied by a reference to the
internal rules which have been applied;
18.5 refrain from shadow banning users’ content and notify
users of every instance of demotion or delisting;
18.6 ensure that automated content moderation processes are
subject to human oversight and to rigorous and continuous evaluation
to assess their performance;
18.7 make available a system for handling complaints that is
easily accessible, user friendly and allows users to make a precise
complaint;
18.8 give human moderators appropriate training and working
conditions which pay attention to the heavy psychological stress
they are submitted to, and ensure adequate protection of their health;
18.9 refrain from permanent deletion of content (including
its metadata) that has been removed in accordance with legal obligations
or with terms and conditions, in particular when the content in
question may serve as evidence of war or other crimes;
18.10 ensure that the artificial intelligence systems they develop
or use uphold Council of Europe standards, including the new Framework
Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy
and the Rule of Law; algorithms should be designed to respect the
right to freedom of expression, and to encourage plurality and diversity
of views and opinions while ensuring a safe user experience, their
operation modalities should be disclosed and users duly informed
on how these algorithms filter and promote content;
18.11 collaborate with other online services with the aim of
ensuring the interoperability of watermarking techniques for content
generated by artificial intelligence;
18.12 collaborate with journalists and fact-checking organisations
to effectively combat disinformation with information that adheres
to the ethical and professional standards of journalism;
18.13 promote and support the creation of independent out-of-court
dispute settlement bodies, and abide by their decisions and recommendations;
18.14 support the work of independent third-party oversight
bodies and abide by their decisions and recommendations;
18.15 ensure that decisions related to content moderation are
duly motivated and that researchers have access to full information
on the legal base and reasoning behind each decision.
