Politics · de.indymedia · · 1h
European Media Freedom Act: A privilege that is hardly received
Deutsch (original) · Auto-translated to English
Actually, Instagram, TikTok & Co. no longer simply delete journalistic content. This is what an EU law wants. Now the online services have published transparency reports for the first time and revealed how often they still intervene. But the numbers paint an incomplete picture.
Sometimes the answer is a resounding yes. This also applies to the fairly fundamental question of whether large social media companies are allowed to delete journalistic content on their platforms. In this case, the EU has imposed special rules on the large platforms. Does that work?
This has been the case in the EU for a little over a year nowhttps://commission.europa.eu/topics/democracy/eu-actions-protect-democra...the Austrian Media Freedom Act(EMFA). This is intended not only to defend media against state influence, but also to strengthen their position compared to large Internet platforms, which often stand between users and media. Previously, the platforms had repeatedly removed journalistic contributions, often citing alleged violations of the platform's own rules.
Two examples from Germany: Facebook and Instagram deleted around one in 2021.https://www.facebook.com/monitor.wdr/videos/hanau-t%C3%B6dliche-vers%C3%...of the ARD magazine Monitor on the terrorist attack in Hanau. The platforms removed the post based on their community standards and did not inform Monitor about it, according to a lobby brochure from the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which is available to netzpolitik.org. In 2023, X (then Twitter) briefly blocked the account of Frontal21 (ZDF), https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/frontal-21-twitter-sperrt-konto-von-zdf-...because of incorrect proof of age.
This is how the EMFA is supposed to work
To protect against such interventions,https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401083#...18 of the EMFA created, which regulates “media privilege”. This obliges very large platforms to comply with the DSA, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-...so-called VLOPsto provide media with special account status if they register there as recognized media providers. To do this, a media provider must, among other things, state that it is editorially independent of, for example, political parties, how it deals with AI content and whether it is part of a self-regulatory process (Press Council, Journalism Trust Initiative) or is otherwise supervised (Broadcasting Council, State Media Authority). The platform then has to decide whether to accept such applications. This part of the process is called self-declaration.
Large platforms such as TikTok or Facebook are then not allowed to simply delete the content of media declared in this way immediately. If the platform wants to remove content or limit its visibility (“shadowban”), it must inform the media provider 24 hours in advance. This gives him the opportunity to object. In the end, the platform decides. This procedure is also known as the so-called “stay-up rule”.
The EMFA should apply to platforms that are also VLOPs within the meaning of the DSA and act as potential intermediaries to journalistic content. From the EU Commission's perspective, these are Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube. A spokeswoman said this in response to a netzpolitik.org request.
The regulation was controversial during the negotiations on the law. Onehttps://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EMFA_policystatement_V3_2601...civil society organizations, including Wikimedia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, saw the privileged status as an attack on freedom of expression. One of the concerns is that manipulative actors could also achieve this privileged status and distort public discourse. The organizations also argued that distortions caused by platform algorithms and the monopolization of the global online advertising market were much bigger problems for journalism.
Others fought for even stricter regulations. The Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers, for example, advocated that journalistic contributions should only have been blocked if the content violated applicable law. Later, European media associations advocated that platforms should at least not have the final say on deletion, but rather national supervisory authorities or bodies such as the Press Council.
Is the EMFA not being complied with?
One person who closely supports the implementation of media privilege is https://www.ebu.ch/topics/media-freedom-pluralism">ThomasMiner. Bergmann works for the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which includes ARD and ZDF as well as ORF (Austria), RAI (Italy) and Radio Vatican.
In an interview with netzpolitik.org, Bergmann reports that the EMFA has not yet resolved the original problem. “The deletion of content and shadow bans continue.” The European Federation of Journalists also stated to netzpolitik.org that in their opinion the “stay-up regulation” is not being adhered to.
However, Bergmann does not name any specific cases. When asked by netzpolitik.org, the Association of German Newspaper Publishers, the German Association of Journalists, the European Federation of Journalists and ZDF were also unable to point to any specific case in which the content of a channel was deleted even though the media provider was registered with a social media platform according to the EMFA.
Bergmann says: “Our members clearly suspect that this will continue to happen, and this is a big problem, especially on TikTok.” There is often no announcement of platform decisions including a grace period, even though the EMFA stipulates this.
TikTok denies the accusation. “We informed media service providers 24 hours before the restriction or suspension of their content, as required by Article 18 paragraph 4 EMFA,” said a TikTok spokeswoman upon request. None of the affected media service providers then contacted TikTok.
Regarding the restrictions on visibility, the TikTok spokeswoman writes: “Certain content is not eligible for recommendation in the ‘For You’ feed for a broad audience, and we do not recommend it.https://www.tiktok.com/safety/de-DE/policies-and-engagement/recommendati...represents, what types of content fall into this category.” According to the house rules, the main aim is to ensure that harmful content such as hate speech is not flushed en masse into users' feeds. At least TikTok notifies the authors if their content is not eligible for a recommendation, said the spokeswoman, and gives them the opportunity to object.
–––
The hut is on fire! We're going in.
We oppose fascisation. We fight for a free, open and solidarity-based society. We defend basic rights for everyone.https://netzpolitik.org/spenden/?via=rss">Thisonly possible with your support.
–––
This is how often TikTok, Insta & Co. journalistic content
Although current cases of deleted journalistic contributions are obviously not that easy to find, they do exist. We know this from the online services themselves: They must publish a transparency report on their actions against media service providers once a year, which is also stipulated by the EMFA.
TikTokhas according to its ownhttps://sf16-va.tiktokcdn.com/obj/eden-va2/zayvwlY_fjulyhwzuhy%5B/ljhwZt...Content from recognized media providers has only been deleted or restricted four times in the past twelve months.
According to the report, it was about “exposure and sexualized behavior”, “shocking and explicit content” and the trade in prohibited items. The report does not offer any more details, and TikTok did not want to explain the cases in more detail when asked by netzpolitik.org.
Metaaccording to his https://transparency.meta.com/reports/regulatory-transparency-reports/">...In 549 (Facebook) and 528 (Instagram) cases, content from previously declared media providers was removed - and only from August to the end of 2025.
According to Meta, about 90 percent of these cases involved advertisements “about social issues, elections or politics.” https://netzpolitik.org/2026/wahlen-ohne-werbung-wie-google-und-meta-die...Meta no longer allows in the European Union – in response to an EU regulation that sets additional rules for political advertising that Meta does not want to comply with.
Meta also deleted content from recognized media outlets for nudity, sexuality, child abuse and “sexually explicit language,” 13 times on Facebook and twice on Instagram. This is also where the most formal objections from the media were made (12). Meta does not answer how many of these appeals were successful either in the report or when asked.
Additionally, media content was removed for copyright violations, “dangerous individuals or organizations,” and spam.
YouTube counts a total of 89 restrictions and deletions in its https://storage.googleapis.com/transparencyreport/report-downloads/pdf-r...YouTube records half of these as “age-specific restrictions”. “Violent content”, suicides and self-harm as well as sexual content are also cited as reasons for restrictions. When asked, YouTube did not say how often recognized media providers have objected to this.
X has https://transparency.x.com/content/dam/transparency-twitter/emfa/EMFA-Re...reportNo content from recognized media providers was deleted at all.
LinkedIn has https://delivery-p143253-e1476319.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aai...own informationnot received a single complete self-declaration.
These figures come from the platforms themselves. Neither the EBU nor the Association of German Newspaper Publishers were able to provide independent figures upon request. The EU Commission is also unable to provide any figures at the moment, writes a spokeswoman when asked by netzpolitik.org.
Registration often fails
The platforms' numbers have a catch. They only apply to media that has previously registered with them. And there aren't that many. At Meta, until the end of 2025, these were only the public broadcasters Rai (Italy), Yleisradio Oy (Finland), RTBF (Belgium) and ZDF. TikTokhttps://www.tiktok.com/safety/en/transparency/emfa-transparency">nameson his side seven providers, https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/european-media-freedom-act">Xup to 25. At the same time, around X states that it did not accept a total of 29 applications during the reporting period.
EBU expert Bergmann says: “Due to the lack of communication on the part of the platforms and the complexity of registration, only a few media service providers have so far made use of the media privilege.”
–––
The work of netzpolitik.org is financed by donations from our readers.
Become part of this unique community and support our public interest-oriented, advertising- and tracking-free journalismhttps://netzpolitik.org/spenden/?via=rss">nowwith a donation.
–––
According to Thomas Bergmann, the forms for a self-declaration could not be found properly. "You couldn't find them at all, not via the interface and only via the Google search if you clicked through several results pages," reports Bergmann. It's now a little easier to find the relevant positions, at least via search engines. To make it easier to find, the EBU has also set up the various contact points.https://www.ebu.ch/news/2026/03/lost-and-found-helping-media-outlets-nav...listed on your own page.
Nevertheless, there are still problems. As the ARD reports upon request, it is challenging
that there is no central, cross-platform, self-declaration procedure and the requirements of Article 18 EMFA as well as the accompanying documents are met.https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-under-articl...the EU Commission were implemented differently by the platforms. Some platforms allow multiple accounts to be registered together, others require individual registration for each account or channel, sometimes with additional verification requirements or very detailed explanations.
What is the balance?
So what is the outcome of media privilege, about a year after it came into force?
In response to the netzpolitik.org query, ZDF writes: “Since registration, there have been no significant changes in the moderation behavior of the platforms or the visibility of ZDF content.”
The ARD writes that a final assessment is currently not possible for them. It has not yet been declared as a media provider on any of the platforms. In addition to the different procedures of the platforms, this is also due to “the special organizational structure of the ARD as a federal media association,” a spokeswoman writes to us. So far, blockings and deletions have usually been resolved quickly through direct communication with the platform.
Thomas Bergmann from the EBU says: "You kind of have the feeling: It's just a cosmetic change to the way the platforms operate. Nevertheless, there is no willingness to implement it."
The European Federation of Journalists tells netzpolitik.org that the EMFA is being implemented poorly: “It feels as if the platforms have not taken this task seriously, and the Commission also published its guidelines relatively late.”
The European Commission tells netzpolitik.org that it is monitoring the implementation and effect of media privilege. She refers to a structured dialogue that the newly created Media Board is scheduled to hold at the beginning of November. Platforms that fall under the EMFA regulations are also invited there.
Consequences? Probably just by complaining
Bergmann also has his hopes in such dialogue formats. But he also says: “Without pressure from above, nothing will happen because there are no direct legal consequences in the EMFA.” The EMFA does not provide for any penalties for non-compliance, in contrast to the Digital Services Act, for which the EU Commission can impose penalties of up to six percent of annual turnover. “In Article 18 EMFA, it was completely forgotten that it could happen that the platforms do not implement it,” complains Bergmann.
As long as this situation is not corrected, media companies recognized by the platforms will only have the option of filing a lawsuit to enforce the EMFA. However, Bergmann remains skeptical. It is questionable whether a media service provider would initiate a procedure that could take a long time and cost money. “Even if a national court finds a violation of Article 18 EMFA, without dissuasive sanctions there will still be little incentive for platforms to comply with Article 18.”
–––
The work of netzpolitik.org is financed by donations from our readers.
Become part of this unique community and support our public interest-oriented, advertising- and tracking-free journalismhttps://netzpolitik.org/spenden/?via=rss">nowwith a donation.
Read the full story at the source
Source: de.indymedia