The social media landscape is changing. The ‚public forum‘ is now filled with citizens selling products, promoting services, charging for subscriptions, and sometimes seeking attention in ways which may not be socially desirable. We ask: How can a space that is becoming increasingly commercialised, monetised, and is a source of income for many nevertheless be fair?
Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht gelangt mit einiger Anstrengung zu einer generellen Pflicht öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunkanstalten, Inhalte auf ihren Social Media-Präsenzen zu moderieren und Nutzendenkommentare ohne hinreichenden Sendungsbezug zu löschen. Die Chance, ein zukunftweisendes Judikat zum Auftrag des ÖRR in der plattformisierten Öffentlichkeit zu erlassen, lässt der 7. Senat ungenutzt, dabei hatte das erstinstanzlich befasste VG Leipzig einen Weg dorthin aufgezeigt.
In the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes which hit southwestern Turkey, internet connectivity had enabled civil society to provide additional on- and off-site assistance. However, the use of social media is not seen as innocent by Turkish authorities. Immediately after the earthquakes, authorities started to use legal instruments to silence the use of social media platforms even at the expense of utilizing its benefits during catastrophic times.
On 16 September 2022 the European Commission released a proposal for a Regulation establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market, also known as the European Media Freedom Act. The proposal includes safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions, and includes a series of provisions targeting online services and establishing additional obligations and regulatory powers in this field.
Politics in a democratic society have long been a glorified popularity contest, which we can all hope the most capable person wins. Hence, politicians have an incentive to artificially boost their online popularity through fakeness – fake comments, fake followers, fake likes. On a fundamental level, a false sense of popularity may affect our election outcomes – so what are the legal limits of fakeness?
The ongoing war in Ukraine sheds light on crucial challenges of our digital media landscape. The social media-driven “(mis)information wars” surrounding the Russian invasion expose a growing epistemic divide running through liberal democracies. The regulatory focus on truth, with measures like fact-checking, serves little to cure the larger problems behind this. We should rather use the power of the law to devise new modes of intelligent speech regulation mimicking the functions formerly played by the centralized set-up of communication conditions.
The enigmatic Tesla founder Elon Musk has made a public offer to buy 100% of Twitter’s shares at approximately 138% of each share’s value. In his letter of intention submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Musk describes that free speech is necessary in a democratic society, and he wishes to unlock its full potential by bringing Twitter under (his) private ownership. Constitutionally this raises an interesting point: if indeed a billionaire wants to change the rules of speech on the ‘new public squares’ by acquiring a social media platform, can he – and should he be able to?
On 14 April 2022, billionaire Elon Musk came with one of his extravagant ideas: he offered to buy Twitter. According to Musk, who is already majority shareholder, the bid was motivated by his will to fully “unlock” the online platform’s potential as a space for free speech across the globe. This episode calls for a reflection on the future of online platforms as digital spaces for the flourishing of public debate and democracy.
On March 18, 2022, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes suspended Telegram’s functioning in Brazil through an individual injunction. In brief, the platform was blocked because its owners ignored their duty to cooperate with the Brazilian state in the repression of the illicit activities committed over the platform. However, only analyzing the issue’s core misses one of its essential surrounding elements: the direct interest of President Jair Bolsonaro in the free operation of the platform and the growing antagonism between him and Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
Der WDR plant eine „Dienstanweisung zum Umgang mit sozialen Medien“. Sie sollte sich in geleakter Fassung nicht nur auf die dienstlichen Accounts der Rundfunkanstalt, sondern auch auf die privaten Accounts ihrer Mitarbeitenden erstrecken, deren Agieren in den sozialen Netzwerken weitgehend regulieren und Verstöße empfindlich sanktionieren. Diese Pläne scheinen nun vom Tisch zu sein, rechtlich haltbar sind sie jedenfalls nicht. Sollte der Entwurf doch noch in dieser Form verabschiedet werden, kann den Betroffenen vollauf geraten werden, die Gerichte zu konsultieren.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters