Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000854/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Christine Anderson (ESN)
The regulation of disinformation has become a central pillar of EU policy, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Code of Practice on Disinformation. However, defining disinformation and enforcing disinformation policy raises fundamental epistemological and political concerns, echoing Juvenal’s timeless question: ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ – ‘Who will guard the guards themselves?’
In an era where scientific understanding evolves, political narratives shift and democratic societies thrive on open debate, the risk of centralised authorities defining ‘truth’ is a matter of great concern. The potential for regulatory overreach, institutional bias or the suppression of dissent under the guise of combating disinformation necessitates robust safeguards.
- 1.Epistemic authority and accountability: What mechanisms, particularly under the DSA, ensure that the entities defining and regulating disinformation – whether EU institutions, platforms or fact-checking bodies – are themselves subject to independent scrutiny and accountability?
- 2.Pluralism and the marketplace of ideas: How does the Commission reconcile disinformation regulations with the fundamental need for free and open debate, particularly on politically sensitive or scientifically contested issues?
- 3.Redress and transparency: What legal and procedural safeguards exist for individuals or organisations whose content is unjustly classified as disinformation, and does the Commission envisage any reforms to enhance transparency with regard to such classifications?
Submitted: 26.2.2025