FREEDOM FOR FACTS: For true freedom of expression on online platforms!
Lies spread faster than the truth. Opinion on major online platforms is not free, but determined by recommendation algorithms. Lies reach users three times faster on Facebook (1) and six times faster on Twitter (2). And that was before Zuckerberg bowed down to Trump and Musk took over Twitter.
We can only guess at what the situation is like today. What mechanisms determine it? It’s a black box.
Meta, X and TikTok do not reveal their cards. Their multi-billion business models rest on these unfair algorithms. This leaves politicians and the public with only the effects to look at: election interference on TikTok in Romania or the boosting of the reach of Russia-friendly German parties on X. Freedom of expression is dead, long live the freedom of expression of Musk, Zuckerberg and Shou Zi Chew. This is how democracies are destroyed.
If we don’t know how this happens, we can’t take countermeasures against unfair algorithms. As long as lies reach more people than the truth, the demand to delete more and more will become louder and louder. We believe this is the wrong approach.
The European Union agrees with this view and is taking a different approach with the Digital Services Act: examining and changing mechanisms, not content.
Fairness for all content – no suppression of facts.
This is what needs to be done now: the EU Commission must examine the mechanisms that make disinformation a successful model. And then it must force the platforms to offer better alternatives.
It is time for citizens to see what they choose to see on the internet again! But the EU Commission is afraid of Trump, Musk and the oligarchs. Yet this hesitation is achieving exactly the opposite: it is only making the tech oligarchs stronger.
That is why we demand:
- Start investigating algorithms now!
- Stop mechanisms that spread disinformation to more people than information!
- Investigate X, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube!
So that all opinions are free again! That is what real freedom of expression looks like.
–
Initial signatories
Alexandra Geese | Member of the European Parliament (initiator)
Shoshana Zuboff | Author of ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’ & Harvard Professor Emerita
Markus Beckedahl | Internet policy activist and journalist in Berlin, founder of netzpolitik.org
Wikimedia Germany | Society for the Promotion of Free Knowledge
Digitalcourage e.V. | Association for ‘a livable world in the digital age’
Stefan Mutmacher | Influencer, internet activist and founder of #ProtestWählen
FAQ – Freedom for Facts
- How does disinformation spread on social media?
Studies have shown that false reports and lies spread faster and further on social networks than facts. On Facebook, false reports reach users three times faster (1) and on Twitter/X six times faster (2).
There are two main reasons for this: First, people unconsciously or consciously seek out the kind of information that confirms their opinions. This makes it relatively difficult for facts to compete. In addition, social networks are designed to prioritise content that generates a lot of reaction and interaction in timelines – and this is often false, distorted or deliberately taken out of context content that outrages or frightens us.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/03/21/facebook-spreads-fake-news-faster-than-any-other-social-website-according-to-new-research/
- https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559
- What is the business model of the major social networks?
The business model of big tech companies consists firstly of the algorithms used by platforms and secondly of the personalisation and tailoring of content for each user.
- Algorithmic systems, also known as recommendation systems, make automatic decisions about, for example, which content is prioritised or downgraded in feeds or search results, what content users see next, who they should connect with and which accounts they should follow. Content and accounts that generate a lot of reactions and interactions (known as ‘engagement’) are displayed preferentially to users.
- Many companies specialise in tracking user behaviour on the internet, in apps or on our smartphones and creating highly accurate profiles (known as ‘tracking’). These profiles are then used as a basis for displaying personalised content and advertisements. Big tech companies have mountains of data at their disposal and can show users exactly what they find most outrageous or exciting.
Since big tech companies depend on advertising for their revenue, they want to use their algorithms and personalisation techniques to keep users on their platforms for as long as possible so that they see the greatest possible amount of advertising content.
As a result, misleading, hateful, conspiracy-driven or extremist views often find their way into public debate before factual or nuanced information is even available. This leads to significant distortion in news consumption and social debate.
Big tech companies such as Google, Meta and TikTok want us to believe that the internet can only function if all user data is collected and analysed on a massive scale. The truth, however, is that surveillance, tracking and manipulation are not necessarily part of the technology. What began as a decentralised and open protocol has instead undermined democratic values because the big tech companies deliberately pursued an advertising-based revenue model that Shoshana Zuboff called ‘surveillance capitalism’ (3).
(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberwachungskapitalismus
This business model is now threatened by growing social awareness of its incompatibility with democracy.
- How do the algorithms on the major social networks work?
Algorithmic systems, also known as recommendation systems, make automatic decisions about, for example, which content is given preference or downgraded in feeds or search results, what content you see next, who you should connect with and which accounts you should follow.
Content and accounts that generate a lot of reactions and interactions (known as ‘engagement’) are given preferential display to users.
In this context, the allegations made by whistleblower Frances Haugen attracted a great deal of attention. After leaving her job as a product manager at Facebook in 2021, she disclosed internal documents from her former employer.
These provided evidence of how targeted business decisions were intended to increase user interaction and led to algorithms prioritising and amplifying negative, toxic or hateful content.
At Facebook, for example, algorithms use different weightings for different predicted actions. A ‘like’ is weighted with one point, a “reaction” or a ‘reshare without text’ with five points, and ‘meaningful comments or reshares’ with 30 points (4). This also means that content that triggers anger and fear is spread more widely than positive content.
Algorithms thus learn which content leads to ‘engagement’ (clicking, sharing, commenting) and spread it more quickly – a continuous, automatic refinement and intensification.
(4) Facebook leaked internal document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21093256/internal-document-obtained-by-cnn.pdf
- Why are these algorithms a threat to our democracy?
Misleading, hateful, conspiracy-driven or extremist views often find their way into public debate before factual or differentiated information is even available. The media also increasingly tend to polarise in order to maintain their visibility (‘click bait’).
This leads to a significant distortion of news consumption and social debate. Such toxic polarisation, in turn, makes compromise increasingly impossible.
Right-wing extremist parties and movements are gaining momentum in more and more European Member States. They are aided in this by large online platforms, whose algorithms deliberately favour their – often false or misleading – content. Facts that do not incite hatred, on the other hand, receive less visibility.
Data profiles can be deliberately misused to spread disinformation to susceptible groups or influence voting behaviour. The best-known example of how this works in practice is the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The scandal highlighted the massive influence of the data economy on our democracy: the company Cambridge Analytica misused private Facebook data to target and manipulate undecided voters in the 2016 US presidential election.
An authoritarian regime can therefore spy on Europe using data profiles of millions of users and manipulate them in a targeted manner in order to destroy our democracy. (6)
(5) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/28/trump-2016-cambridge-analytica-suppression/
- What is the Digital Services Act?
The Digital Services Act (DSA) is an EU-wide law that sets clear rules for online platforms. Providers must remove illegal content immediately upon becoming aware of it in order to avoid liability. The DSA makes it possible for the first time to take targeted action against hate speech, disinformation and dangerous recommendation algorithms that can endanger public discourse and elections. Large platforms such as YouTube and Instagram are required to regularly assess risks to fundamental rights, human dignity, freedom of expression or the protection of minors.
A significant step forward is data access for science and civil society, which can now investigate how problematic content – such as content related to COVID-19 or originating from Russia – spreads faster than facts. In addition, the DSA restricts targeted advertising tracking, especially for minors and sensitive data such as political opinions or health.
The DSA strengthens users’ rights, increases transparency and holds platforms accountable. For the first time, it creates binding standards across Europe to combat digital polarisation, illegal hate speech and the business model of outrage economy – without deleting legal content. The DSA thus has the potential to fundamentally change the internet for the better.
- Why is the US putting pressure on the EU?
In a memorandum dated 21 February 2025, the Trump administration ordered the US Department of Commerce and trade representatives to protect ‘American companies from foreign extortion and unfair fines.’ Tariffs are mentioned as possible countermeasures – with the aim of preventing the enforcement of the DSA/DMA and the introduction of digital taxes.
The relatively new EU digital laws, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are a particular thorn in the side of the ‘America First’ administration. Both laws are intended to strengthen the rights of internet users and weaken the dominance of large digital corporations in particular. Many of these companies are based in the US and are therefore more affected than smaller competitors, such as those in the EU.
In the trade dispute instigated by US President Donald Trump, the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) could be put on hold for US companies such as Alphabet, Meta and Apple.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/u-s-eu-near-deal-on-non-tariff-trade-irritants-455c42f1
https://netzpolitik.org/2025/zollkrieg-mit-den-usa-trump-will-eu-digitalgesetze-aufweichen/
- What needs to happen now?
The EU must consistently enforce its digital laws such as the DSA, DMA, AI Act, Data Act and GDPR to protect citizens, promote innovation and guarantee fair rules for all companies, regardless of their origin. Social media platforms should remain free from the influence of Big Tech CEOs or foreign governments. The EU Commission must take decisive action against recommendation systems that recommend illegal content or pose systemic risks to democracy. Interaction-based ranking systems are dangerous and should be replaced by transparent, credible systems in which conscious decisions by users are decisive. Recommendation systems must be switched off or transparently adjusted, especially during election periods. In parallel with the enforcement of existing laws, European social networks must be given room to develop.