Resolution 2590 (2025)1Provisional version

Regulating content moderation on social media to safeguard freedom of expression

Parliamentary Assembly1. Social media have become an online agora where users come to exercise their right to freedom ofexpression and information in many ways. These include posting their own content and enjoying the contentposted by others, getting informed and informing others, and communicating with other users.

2. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right; social media are legally obliged to removeany illegal content when they become or are made aware of its existence on their services. Moreover, it isincumbent 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 andfreedom of enterprise, and therefore they have a say in how users can use their services and what contentthey can post. The content moderation rules included in their terms and conditions allow for social mediacompanies to demote, demonetise, restrict access to, or remove a concrete content item because of itsincompatibility with their terms and conditions. In extreme cases, social media companies can suspend oreven terminate a user’s account. Their terms and conditions have a contractual character, and users arebound by them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

4. The major social media companies, mainly US owned, have a global reach; their content moderationpolicies and their commercial or ideological decisions about content to promote or demote may have animmense influence on public opinion and on choices of billions of people. It is, nevertheless, incumbent uponthem 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 democraticprocesses that the information and communication flow on social media de facto has, it is incumbent upon theState to establish the fundamental principles and institutional framework that may correct the powerimbalance resulting from the unequal contractual relationship and ensure the effective protection of the right tofreedom of expression.

6. It is imperative, however, that public regulation of content moderation does not have a chilling effect onfree speech and is not intended to impose the views of the political power in place and censorship on opinionsor ideas which may conflict with the ruling majority’s vested interests. Moreover, national regulations shouldnot 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 thenecessity of any restrictions.

7. The risk of restrictive content moderation policies is increased by the lack of transparency in theirimplementation. Social media have been accused of a practice called “shadow banning” whereby they delistor demote content dealing with controversial issues without notifying the user in question, making that contentinvisible to other users. This devious, hidden practice should be forbidden: it deprives users of the possibilityto defend effectively their right to freedom of expression.

1. 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).

https://pace.coe.int

https://pace.coe.int

2 DE ABRIL DE 2025 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

75