Protecting Media Freedom Online: Old Challenges, New Solutions

In an increasingly digital world, journalists and media organisations have faced growing threats online, from small incidents on the platforms to an increasing trend of online censorship and targeted harassment. Ensuring robust reporting mechanisms and effective escalation channels has been crucial for safeguarding media freedom and protecting digital rights.

Journalists in conflict zones like Ukraine and Palestine face severe online threats, including censorship and harassment. Palestinian reporters struggle with poor internet access and overwhelming workloads, while Ukrainian journalists face Russian-backed digital attacks, leading to unfair account suspensions.

Journalists have relied on escalation channels like Access Now Digital Security Helpline, connections to trusted partners, and other regional channels like the Tech & Journalism Mechanism (T&JM) to challenge platforms’ moderation decisions that impact their news outreach. These initiatives remain vital for advocacy and protection.

New legal mechanisms now provide additional support. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) help journalists challenge unfair content moderation. The Appeals Center Europe under the DSA offers a structured way to dispute takedowns and suspensions, strengthening press freedom protections, and it offers potential resolutions even for organisations outside Europe (as long as the content is available in the EU and the appeal is made by an organisation based in the EU).

Escalation mechanisms in conflict zones

Challenges and Lessons Learned in Palestine

Layla Samara, Head of Projects at Sada Social in Palestine, shared the challenges of collecting data from journalists in Palestine, highlighting the overwhelming workload and threatening circumstances faced by journalists. Journalists are working under threatening conditions, with limited access to the internet connection, and sometimes don’t have awareness of what to report or to whom to report when experiencing an incident. Sada Social implemented proactive measures to facilitate access to their escalation channel, making it available to journalists and human rights defenders to reach out whenever they experience an incident via phone messaging.

“Journalists in Gaza, they are under many threats and very challenging circumstances. So reaching us for reporting digital violation is like a luxury, they have to protect themselves first. And this is our priority as well, to make sure that they are safe and they are able to reach us without any dangerous situation”, she emphasised.

The issue of content moderation on social media platforms adds another layer of difficulty, as the platforms do not differentiate between media content and incitement due to a lack of understanding of the context or bias. Most of the time, it is not only about digital safety but also about the physical threat of those journalists who are continuously targeted online and offline. Despite the challenges, Layla reports that Sada Social has documented over 9,330 violations against journalists and media outlets since October 2023, and has succeeded in restoring some accounts through legal means. As she highlighted, it is important to collaborate with partners outside the country and others working internationally to collect data, but also to resolve some of the cases and to seek support amidst the changing digital landscape to address the violations journalists face in Palestine.

Escalation Channels and Lessons Learned in Ukraine

Otar Dovzhenko, an expert from Lviv Media Forum in Ukraine, discussed the challenges faced by Ukrainian media during the full-scale invasion, including the blocking of pages on Facebook by Russian trolls and bots. In response, a coalition of Ukrainian watchdogs and media research organisations was formed under the umbrella of the T&JM initiative, to support media professionals facing unfair restrictions on social media platforms, particularly on Facebook. The coalition outgrew its mission of supporting the T&JM initiative and it grew to share information and updates as well as to help Ukrainian journalists, public figures, and media outlets navigate the challenges of being targeted by Russian informational attacks, including account blocks and suspensions.

One key insight shared by Dovzhenko was that many issues were not related to media outlet pages but to individual public figures, with the difficulty often proving their journalistic role. The coalition also focused on educating Ukrainian media professionals about avoiding language that triggers platform restrictions, despite the emotional toll of the ongoing conflict. Through their efforts, they were able to raise awareness and provide expert support, reaching a significant portion of the Ukrainian media landscape. Otar also emphasised the need for research and data collection to address these challenges.

Tech and Journalism Mechanism: Insights and Challenges in Account Moderation

In November 2023 GFMD and Lviv Media Forum launched Tech&Journalism Mechanism (T&JM). One of the unique aspects of the mechanism was its focus on understanding how platform moderation actions affected the account status of media organisations, rather than solely examining individual pieces of content. By gathering data on account-level moderation incidents, GFMD and LMF were able to assess the broader impact of various moderation actions, such as account removals, suspensions, and deamplification. Additionally, they collected data on the resolution times for different types of incidents and tracked the violations of terms of service that led to these actions, as suggested by partners. This data provided a clearer picture of the challenges media organisations face when interacting with tech platforms. The data (and lack of it in some instances) also illustrates the crucial need for greater transparency from platforms regarding the reasons behind moderation actions. Without this information, media organisations are left navigating a system that lacks clarity and accountability.

The gaps in data and the limitations of current reporting mechanisms highlight the need for continued collaboration across local, regional, and global levels. As these issues persist, it becomes clear that advocating for a multistakeholder governance approach is essential to ensure a more transparent, accountable, and supportive environment for journalists and media organisations navigating the digital landscape.

ACCESS THE T&JM FINAL CASE DIGEST HERE

Appeals Center Europe: A New Mechanism for Protecting Media Content Under the DSA

Thomas Hughes, Chief Executive Officer of the Appeals Centre Europe introduced the new out-of-court dispute settlement body, explaining its origins and the certification process under the Digital Services Act. He outlined three core elements that highlight the relevance of the Appeal Center Europe under the Digital Services Act (DSA):

1. Appeals Centre Europe can protect media content by addressing disputes over unwarranted takedowns and account suspensions.
2. It serves as an impartial body that can protect journalists and human rights defenders by resolving disputes in a relatively short period, although initial decisions may take weeks due to system maturity.
3. The centre’s ability to produce data is crucial for identifying systemic harms across platforms. This data, while not intended for advocacy, can be used by journalists, media organizations, and regulators to hold platforms accountable for their actions, encouraging greater platform responsibility.

“I think very important is that it gives individuals and organizations the opportunity to take greater control over their online spaces and to really become more active and involved. I realize, and I completely agree that individuals and organizations should not replace the responsibility of platforms to do content moderation. But certainly, Article 21 empowers individuals in a way that really hasn’t been the case previously”, Thomas Huge noted.

The Appeals Center Europe is certified to focus on social media platforms and will start with Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, expanding to other platforms in the coming months. Its work also connects to the broader governance framework, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), where future implementations may further address systemic risks.

The Interaction Between the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act

Maria Donde, International Director at Coimisiún na Meán in Ireland explained the setup of the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act, emphasising the role of digital service coordinators and the European Commission in overseeing compliance. While the EMFA focuses on the media’s role in democracy and the obligations of member states, the DSA targets platform transparency and user empowerment. Maria stressed that media services must uphold high editorial standards and actively raise complaints with digital service coordinators to address issues.

Article 18 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) presents opportunities for media services by linking privileges to high editorial standards. Organisations that adhere to regulatory or self-regulatory frameworks, such as Press Councils, can benefit from these provisions, reinforcing trust and accountability in journalism. This system acts as an incentive for media to maintain rigorous editorial practices and could serve as a media literacy tool, helping the public distinguish trustworthy sources.

Although the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) has not yet been fully implemented, media organisations can already leverage their watchdog role by raising complaints directly with digital service coordinators under the DSA. Some media entities have already done so, demonstrating the potential for holding platforms accountable. While gathering evidence for complaints remains complex, collaboration with digital service coordinators and civil society organisations can help navigate the process effectively.

Key Takeaways from the Discussion

1. Gaps in Regional Reporting Mechanisms: Existing reporting and escalation channels for journalists in conflict zones remain inadequate. Tech platforms and governments often fall short of addressing digital rights concerns, leaving journalists vulnerable.
2. The Influence of Regional Regulations: New policies like the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) could help journalists challenge unfair account moderation and online restrictions. While EU-based, these regulations have the potential to influence digital governance globally.
3. Leveraging Data for Stronger Advocacy: Using data and case studies to push for safer online spaces is crucial. Advocacy groups must work closely with governments and regulatory bodies to ensure fair implementation of digital policies.

Resources

If your organisation needs to report a digital incident, you can find some resources below:

For digital security:

• Access Now Digital Security Helpline
• Qurium’s Rapid Response: Pro-bono service dedicated to independent media, investigative journalists and human rights activists in Internet repressive regimes that have been targets of digital attacks, or are likely to become a target due to its scope of work, and are in need of immediate support.

For moderation incidents:

• Start a dispute for content moderation issue
• Report an incident to T&JM
• In Palestine: Sada Social, 7amleh – 7or Platform

Other resources compilations in GFMD websites:

• GFMD IMPACT, resources collected for the workshop “Securing Journalism: The Importance of Encryption in Protecting Media Freedom”
• T&JM resources
• MediaDev Fundraising Guide, resources on Digital Support

Background on the Policy and Advocacy Meeting

On January 21, GFMD held a  Policy and Advocacy Meeting titled “Connecting the dots: How to use existing mechanisms to protect media freedom online?”. Key stakeholders came together to review two existing regional reporting mechanisms and escalation channels, who were operating in conflict zones, to identify gaps and challenges in engaging with technology platforms and governments. The discussion also explored the impact of major regulatory frameworks like the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) assessing their potential to improve online safety and accountability—not just within Europe but globally. By leveraging data-driven insights and case studies, the meeting aimed to inform evidence-based advocacy and guide policymakers, regulatory bodies, and other stakeholders in shaping more effective protections for journalists in the digital space.