Established as a framework for large digital platforms, the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force in 2022 to combat online disinformation. However, its effectiveness remains limited: a recent article shows that this difficulty is largely due to the lack of shared definitions of the concepts of “misinformation” (false information, but the person spreading it believes it to be true) and “disinformation” (false information, and the person spreading it knows it to be false), which are central to European regulation.
An ambitious regulatory framework to tackle information disorder
Today, digital platforms play a central role in the circulation of information and the structure of public debate. Their ability to amplify content on a large scale raises growing concerns about the effects of misinformation and disinformation on democracy, public health, and social harmony. To address these issues, the European Union has adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires very large platforms to prevent and mitigate the risks associated with their services.
However, despite this ambition, the concrete effects of the DSA on limiting disinformation remain difficult to assess. In their article Navigating Misinformation and Disinformation: How Definition Ambiguity Limits the DSA’s Implementation, Marion Seigneurin, Christine Balagué, and Inna Lyubareva identify one cause of this weakness: the persistent ambiguity of the definitions of misinformation and disinformation.
Multiple definitions depending on the actors
Indeed, despite the two definitions given above, it remains difficult for a robot to know the intention of the author of fake news.
The study Navigating Misinformation and Disinformation: How Definition Ambiguity Limits the DSA’s Implementation is based on an analysis of 79 documents from different ecosystems: European regulatory texts, internal policies of digital platforms, fact-checking codes, and academic publications.
The authors show that these actors use the concepts of misinformation and disinformation in different ways, sometimes implicitly, but often contradictorily! This diversity can be explained by distinct institutional interests and constraints. While regulators favor a legally cautious approach, concerned with preserving freedom of expression, platforms adopt definitions that are compatible with their technical capabilities and business models. Fact-checkers focus on the factual accuracy of content, while researchers draw on a variety of theoretical frameworks that are rarely consistent.
Four criteria, but no common framework
The analysis highlights four main criteria used to characterize misinformation and disinformation:
- The quality of the content (truthfulness, reliability of sources, etc.),
- Intent (presence or absence of a desire to deceive),
- The associated risk,
- Creation and dissemination techniques (automation, coordination, amplification, etc.).
However, these criteria are rarely combined in a consistent manner. Some actors focus on intent, others on risk or dissemination methods, leading to divergent interpretations of what constitutes problematic content under the DSA.
Concrete consequences for the implementation of the DSA
This fragmentation has direct effects on the effectiveness of the Digital Services Act. It complicates the assessment of systemic risks that platforms are required to carry out, weakens the design and evaluation of the countermeasures put in place, and limits the comparability of research and independent audits.
It also fuels tensions around freedom of expression by blurring the line between harmful content and legitimate opinions. In the absence of shared criteria, regulation risks either being ineffective or raising questions about its democratic legitimacy.
Clarify for better regulation
In light of this observation, the authors argue for the adoption of operational definitions based on explicit and shared criteria. Without seeking to impose a single, rigid definition, they advocate for a common framework that articulates content quality, intent, risk, and modes of dissemination.
Formalization would strengthen the consistency of regulatory action, facilitate the work of researchers and supervisory authorities, and provide a more solid basis for assessing the real impact of the Digital Services Act. More broadly, the article points out that the fight against disinformation and misinformation relies as much on conceptual choices as on technical or legal tools.