New research highlights shortcomings in the protection of freedom of expression on social media
Emmanuel Vargas Penagos conducts research on freedom of expression on social media. His study reveals a lack of transparency in the EU system for reviewing decisions made by social media platforms.
Who ensures that social media platforms do not restrict people’s freedom of expression? The EU has introduced a system intended to strengthen users’ rights when posts are removed or accounts are suspended. However, new research from Örebro University shows that it is difficult to assess whether the bodies responsible for reviewing such decisions are genuinely independent.
Read the research article:
The study The last duel? Out-of-court dispute settlement in EU content moderation has been published in the journal Information & Communications Technology Law.
Social media have become important arenas for public debate. At the same time, the platforms decide which posts stay up and which are taken down. These decisions can affect people’s ability to express their views and participate in discussions on issues such as politics, migration and international conflicts.
“If fundamental rights are not taken into account in these decisions, there is a risk that public debate will increasingly be shaped by the platforms’ own perspectives. This could lead to a society with less room for differing opinions,” says Emmanuel Vargas Penagos, doctoral student in legal science at Örebro University.
Four out of seven decisions not publicly available
Under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), users can have decisions concerning, for example, removed posts and suspended accounts reviewed by specialised out-of-court dispute settlement bodies. While the bodies’ decisions are not legally binding, they provide users with access to an independent assessment.
Emmanuel Vargas Penagos has examined the seven dispute settlement bodies that had been approved within the EU up to June 2025. The study shows that in four of the seven cases, the authorities’ decisions approving the bodies were not publicly available.
“This makes it difficult for the public, as well as for individuals seeking to challenge a decision, to assess whether there are circumstances that could affect the bodies’ independence or impartiality. It also reduces opportunities for accountability,” he says.
The study also reveals differences between countries in how the bodies’ independence and expertise are assessed, and in the rules they apply when reviewing decisions made by the platforms.
Calls for greater transparency
According to Emmanuel Vargas Penagos, the bodies need to take several different rights into account when reviewing platform decisions. This includes the rights of the person who posted the content, individuals who may be affected by it, and the public’s ability to access information.
He believes that the EU has taken important steps to strengthen users’ rights, but that greater transparency is needed in terms of how the rules are applied.
“The EU has taken important steps through this legislation, but researchers and civil society organisations must also be able to participate and examine how the rules are implemented in practice,” he says.
The study primarily examined how dispute settlement bodies are approved and the rules under which they operate, rather than how effectively the system functions in individual cases.
The research forms part of Emmanuel Vargas Penagos’s doctoral thesis in legal science. The public defence of the thesis is provisionally scheduled for 17 December 2026.
Text: Jesper Eriksson
Photo: Jesper Eriksson
Translation: Charlotta Hambre-Knight