Background: Small and local media, investigative journalism organisations, journalists, and civil society organisations, especially in smaller markets, frequently encounter unwarranted restrictions and prohibitive content moderation practices. In one of the recent examples, in July 2022, Facebook displayed a warning message identifying Moldova's prominent investigative weekly Ziarul de Gardă as being controlled by the Russian state. This damaging move had a negative impact on this investigative reporting outlet in Moldova and raised questions about the level of control that platforms like Facebook have.

It's evident that major online platforms aren't just responsible for fact-checking, distributing, and moderating content; they're also actively curating and editing the digital information ecosystem at scale through recommendations, amplification, and downranking. Ultimately, they hold the power to determine what content is deemed 'newsworthy'.

A skewed selection of news is often boosted out of proportion to the detriment of pluralism, relevance, and quality. Dependable journalism is crowded out by clickbait and other posts deliberately optimised for gaming platform algorithms.

Although some media outlets and journalism organisations, mainly in major markets and languages, have received recognition from the platforms, many others have been left behind. This has been especially true for small, independent, and investigative media outlets in nations and regions that aren't viewed as major tech markets. The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that the current approach is not only ineffective but also potentially harmful to local media and journalists, and overall information spaces online.

 1. Who are credible and trusted voices online? For digital platforms, not all users are the same. Recommender systems, or algorithms that enable content moderation, benefit those who have achieved privileged status or recognition. Facebook's XCheck programme has provided special treatment to millions of celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile users, shielding millions of VIP users from the company's normal enforcement process. While XCheck grew to at least 5.8 million users by 2020, only selected media companies in the most lucrative markets are designated as news publishers on platforms.

In Europe, the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022) stresses the need "to facilitate user access to tools and information to assess the trustworthiness of information sources, such as indicators of trustworthiness for informed online navigation, particularly relating to societal issues or debates of general interest.", acknowledging initiatives aimed at identifying trusted content providers that could be deployed to recognise these key actors.

The Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), which is creating and implementing indicators for the trustworthiness of journalism and thereby promoting and rewarding compliance with professional norms and ethics, is one example of new approaches to journalism self-regulation online. Whereas JTI evaluates and certifies the editorial processes and ethical standards observed by newsrooms, NewsGuard is a browser or app extension tool that displays trust ratings for over 7,500 news and information websites.

Working directly with major brands and their agencies, Internews’ Ads for News initiative also creates lists of fact-based, local news media. So far, it has included more than 8,000 news media in more than 30 countries, including Ukraine.

Most trust initiatives and tools have been developed in the United States or Western Europe. A deeper understanding of what trust and credibility look like in local media ecosystems and cultures, as well as empowering organisations that represent professional communities with ethical standards, such as journalists, is still needed.

 2. From Trusted Flaggers to Trusted Communities of Practice: When drafting the Digital Services Act (DSA), EU policymakers took a major step towards recognising professional communities in the digital information environment by creating a system to designate "Trusted Flaggers."

Building on the concept of "Trusted Flaggers," scholar Martin Husovec has proposed that certain communities (such as scientists, professional journalists, human rights activists, and others) can form Trusted Content Creator associations to represent them in interactions with platforms. This might be comparable to journalism associations or press councils. A similar relationship has already been established between some platforms and independent third-party fact-checkers globally who are certified through the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

 3. Should journalism organisations be recognised? In the context of digital content moderation, this relationship between tech platforms and communities of "trusted content creators" could contribute to better risk assessment and transparency reporting for particularly vulnerable groups of online users, such as female journalists. It would also ease developing protocols for the recognition, verification, and protection of smaller accounts and accounts at risk, such as local news organisations and independent journalists who play an important role in informing their communities but are too small to be of interest to platforms.

Aware of the gaps in EU legislation for ensuring the protection of these fundamental rights, the European Commission has proposed a regulation establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

Article 17.5 of the EMFA stresses the need to have more data on platforms’ interference with news media content by requesting them to disclose instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on news publishers. The proposal also flags the need to create a space for a structured dialogue between platforms, news publishers, and civil society organisations.

However, as you can read below, the inclusion of Article 17 in the European Media Freedom Act proposal has brought attention to the complex issues and diverging opinions surrounding digital regulation and news media. As the debates continue, it remains to be seen how the final proposal will address these issues and what impact it will have on the digital media landscape.