Meta’s Moderation Shift and the TikTok Ban: What’s Cooking in the US and What This Means for EU Platform Regulation

By: Konstantina Bania (The Platform Law Blog)

In this article for The Platform Blog, author Konstantina Bania discusses two major shifts in the digital platform landscape at the start of 2025. First, Meta announced plans to overhaul its content moderation policies on Facebook and Instagram in the US, significantly scaling back fact-checking efforts. However, this move is set to face regulatory hurdles in Europe, where Meta must comply with the Digital Services Act (DSA), including its requirements related to fact-checking. Second, the US Supreme Court upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA), effectively greenlighting the ban of TikTok in the US due to national security concerns over its Chinese ownership. President Trump granted a 75-day extension, resulting in TikTok being unavailable for just over 24 hours before resuming operations.

Beyond their implications under US law, these developments also raise questions about the enforcement of recently adopted EU regulations. For example, the Financial Times reported that Brussels was reconsidering its investigations into big tech practices under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), potentially altering their scope or scaling them back. However, the European Commission quickly dismissed these concerns, affirming its commitment to fully enforcing EU rules governing social networks and digital platforms.

This blog examines how these recent events in the US highlight fundamentally different approaches to platform governance and what they signal for EU digital regulation.

On 7 January 2025, Meta announced major changes to its content moderation policies for Facebook and Instagram. The company plans to discontinue its fact-checking program in the US, replacing it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes. Meta claims this shift is intended to uphold “a commitment to free expression” and address concerns about excessive censorship and inconsistent enforcement. However, the decision has sparked global debate about the risks of allowing harmful content to spread under the guise of free speech. Additionally, it raises critical questions about the potential reach of such content beyond US borders. This section explores the broader implications of Meta’s policy shift in light of the DSA’s fact-checking requirements….

CONTINUE READING…