A Typology of Social Media Regulations in Europe and Their Possible Future Development

  • András Koltay Professor, University of Public Service in Budapest; Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest, Hungary
Keywords: internet regulation, social media, freedom of expression, self-regulation, co-regulation


Social media, search engines, and application platforms are the most important online gatekeepers from the perspective of freedom of expression. These routinely make ‘editorial’ decisions to make certain content inaccessible or to delete or remove it (either to comply with a legal obligation, to respect certain sensitivities, to protect their business interests or at their own discretion). Through such decisions, they directly influence the flow of information. The regulation of gatekeepers also determines the extent to which they are able or obliged to intervene in the process of publishing user content. The number and scope of regulations continue to grow, and the nature of these regulations is diversifying, even more so for online gatekeepers than for traditional media, and this imposes a wide range of rights and obligations on them. The paper reviews the regulations governing social media platforms in Europe, as gatekeepers, which have the greatest impact on the public sphere, typifying the regulations and considering possible directions for their future development.


Balkin, J. (2018) ʻFree Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation’, University of California Davis Law Review, 51, pp. 1151–1210.

Bunting, M. (2018) ʻFrom Editorial Obligation to Procedural Accountability: New Policy Approaches to Online Content in the Era of Information Intermediaries’, Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(2), pp. 165-186.

Chandler, J. A. (2006–07) ʻA Right to Reach an Audience: An Approach to Intermediary Bias on the Internet’, Hofstra Law Review, 35(3), pp. 1095–1137.

Cohen-Almagor, R. (2014) ʻPress Self-Regulation in Britain: A Critique’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), pp. 159-181.

Gilbert, B. (2020) Facebook is Spending $130 Million to Create a ‘Supreme Court’ that can Overrule Mark Zuckerberg – Here’s Everything We Know about It [Online]. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-moderation-independentoversight-board-supreme-court-mark-zuckerberg-explained-2020-2 (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Google, Facebook, Twitter Face EU Fines over Extremist Posts [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45495544 (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Hadfield, G. K. (2017) Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heins, M. (2014) ʻThe Brave New World of Social Media Censorship’, Harvard Law Review Forum, 127, pp. 325-330.

House of Lords (2015) Select Committee on Communications: Press Regulation: Where Are We Now? 3rd Report of Session 2014‒15 [Online]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/135/135.pdf (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

House of Lords (2014) Social Media and Criminal Offences [Online]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/37/3702.htm (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Internet Service Providers’ Association (UK) (2018) Written Evidence (IRN0108) [Online]. Available at: https://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications-committee/the-internet-to-regulate-or-notto-regulate/written/86044.html (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Jackman, T. (2018) Trump Signs ‘FOSTA’ Bill Targeting Online Sex Trafficing, Enables States and Victims to Pursue Websites [Online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/11/trump-signs-fostabill-targeting-online-sex-trafficking-enables-states-and-victims-to-pursuewebsites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.faccd8cf7174 (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Jackman, T. and O’Connell, J. (2017) Backpage has Always Claimed it Doesn’t Control Sex-Related Ads. New Documents Show Otherwise [Online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/backpage-has-always-claimed-it-doesntcontrol-sex-related-ads-new-documents-show-otherwise/2017/07/10/b3158ef6553c-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.d2d3064b22c8 (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Kahn, R. A. (2019) ʻDenial, Memory Bans and Social Media’ in Weaver, R. L., Cole, M. D., Friedland, S. I., Fairgrieve, D., Koltay, A., Raynouard, A. (eds.) Free Speech, Privacy and Media. Comparative Perspectives. Global Papers Series, Volume XI. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Kelly, M. (2020) Facebook’s Oversight Board will Include a Former Prime Minister and Nobel Prize Winner [Online]. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249427/facebook-oversight-board-nobel-peace-prize-instagramsnowden (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Klonick, K. (2019-20) ʻThe Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression’, Yale Law Journal, 129, pp. 2418–2499.

Kohl, U. (2016) ʻIntermediaries within Online Regulation’ in Rowland, D., Kohl, U., Charlesworth, A. (eds.) Information Technology Law. London: Routledge.

Kohl, U. (2017) ʻIslamophobia, “Gross Offensiveness” and the Internet’, Information & Communication Technology Law, 27(1), pp. 111-131.

Laidlaw, E. (2008) ʻPrivate Power, Public Interest: An Examination of Search Engine Accountability’, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17(1), pp. 113-145.

Laidlaw, E. (2015) Regulating Speech in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lomas, N. (2018) UK Media Giants Call for Independent Oversight of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter [Online]. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/03/uk-mediagiants-call-for-independent-oversight-of-facebook-youtube-twitter (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Robinson, D. (2017) Social Networks Face Tougher EU Oversight on Video Content [Online]. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/d5746e06-3fd7-11e7-82b6896b95f30f58 (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Rowbottom, J. (2012) ʻTo Rant, Vent and Converse: Protecting Low Level Digital Speech’, Cambridge Law Journal, 71(2), pp. 355-383.

Rowbottom, J. (2018) If Digital Intermediaries Are to be Regulated, How Should It Be Done? [Online]. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2018/07/16/if-digital-intermediaries-are-to-be-regulated-how-should-it-be-done (Accessed: 8 December 2021).

Thompson, M. (2015–16) ʻBeyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries’, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 18(4), pp. 783-848.

Tushnet, R. (2008) ‘Power without Responsibility: Intermediaries and the First Amendment’, George Washington Law Review, 76 (4), pp. 986-1016.

How to Cite
KoltayA. (2021). A Typology of Social Media Regulations in Europe and Their Possible Future Development. Law, Identity and Values, 1(2), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.55073/2021.2.33-52