Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Very large online platforms shape public discourse, raising concerns about the impact of misinformation and disinformation on democratic stability. The European Union responded with the Digital Services Act framework. However, its enforcement remains limited, partly due to conceptual ambiguities surrounding the concepts of misinformation and disinformation. This article investigates how definitional inconsistencies undermine the Digital Services Act’s (DSA) implementation. We analyzed 79 documents—including EU legislation, platform policies, fact-checking codes, and academic publications—to examine how key actors define these terms. We identified four key definitional criteria: content quality, intent, associated risk, and creation and dissemination techniques. Our findings reveal that these criteria reflect divergent institutional interests and result in fragmented definitions. This fragmentation generates critical risks, affecting freedom of expression, research, countermeasure design, intervention effectiveness, and impact assessment. We conclude by offering recommendations to support criteria-based definitions, improve risk evaluation, and reinforce the DSA's effectiveness in countering information disorders.

Keywords

Definition ambiguity digital services act disinformation misinformation regulation of social media platforms

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albert

(2024a) DSA risk assessment reports: A guide to the first rollout and what’s next - DSA observatory. In: DSA Observatory. Available at: https://dsa-observatory.eu/2024/12/09/dsa-risk-assessment-reports-are-in-a-guide-to-the-first-rollout-and-whats-next/ (accessed 25 March 2025).

Albert

(2024b) TikTok and the Romanian elections: A stress test for DSA enforcement - DSA observatory. Available at: https://dsa-observatory.eu/2024/12/20/tiktok-and-the-romanian-elections/ (accessed 25 March 2025).

Allen

Howland

Mobius

, et al. (2020) Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances 6(14): eaay3539.

Altay

Berriche

Heuer

, et al. (2023) A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review 4(4). doi: 10.37016/mr-2020-119. Epub ahead of print 27 July 2023.

Altay

De Angelis

Hoes

(2024) Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media. Communications Psychology 2(1): 1–9.

Alvarado Rincón

Meyer-Resende

(2025) Big tech is backing out of commitments countering disinformation—What’s next for the EU’s code of practice? | Democracy Reporting International. 7 February. Available at: http://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/EU/publications/big-tech-is-backing-out-of-commitments-countering-disinformation-whats-next-for-the-eus-code-of-practice (accessed 25 March 2025).

Banaji

Bhat

(2021) Social Media and Hate. London: Routledge. Available at: 10.4324/9781003083078.

Baribi-Bartov

Swire-Thompson

Grinberg

(2024) Supersharers of fake news on Twitter. Science 384(6699): 979–982.

Bateman

Jackson

(2024) Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy Guide - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1 January. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/01/countering-disinformation-effectively-an-evidence-based-policy-guide?lang=en&center=global (accessed 26 June 2024).

10.

Berger

Milkman

(2012) What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research 49(2): 192–205.

11.

Bisbee

Munger

(2025) The vibes are off: Did Elon Musk push academics off Twitter? PS: Political Science & Politics 58(1): 139–146.

12.

Broda

Strömbäck

(2024) Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: Lessons from an interdisciplinary, systematic literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association 48(2): 139–166.

13.

Brown

Bisbee

Lai

, et al. (2022) Echo Chambers, Rabbit Holes, and Algorithmic Bias: How YouTube Recommends Content to Real Users. 4114905, SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4114905 (accessed 7 November 2024).

14.

Cazzamatta

(2025) Redefining objectivity: Exploring types of evidence by fact-checkers in four European countries. European Journal of Communication 40(2): 144–164. 10.1177/02673231251319145.

15.

Cesarini

Ginsborg

Gori

, et al. (2024) Platforms’ implementation of the CoP commitments on media literacy, research and fact-checking – EDMO. May. European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO). Available at: https://edmo.eu/edmo-news/platforms-implementation-of-the-cop-commitments-on-media-literacy-research-and-fact-checking/ (accessed 26 June 2024).

16.

Chapman

(2025) Advancing platform accountability: The promise and perils of DSA risk assessments | TechPolicy.Press. Available at: https://techpolicy.press/advancing-platform-accountability-the-promise-and-perils-of-dsa-risk-assessments (accessed 25 March 2025).

17.

Climate Action Against Disinformation. (2024) Underperforming & unprepared. 18 April. Climate Action Against Disinformation. Available at: https://caad.info/analysis/reports/underperforming-unprepared/ (accessed 29 November 2024).

18.

Davidson

Lock

(2025) Argumentation strategies in lobbying: The discursive struggle over proposals to regulate big tech. Journal of Communication Management 29(2): 186–199.

19.

DeVerna

Aiyappa

Pacheco

, et al. (2024) Identifying and characterizing superspreaders of low-credibility content on Twitter. arXiv:2207.09524. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09524 (accessed 29 November 2024).

20.

DSA Civil Society Coordination Group (2025) Civil Society Responds to DSA Risk Assessment Reports: An Initial Feedback Brief. 17 March. Bruxelles: Center for Democracy & Technology Europe. Available at: https://cdt.org/insights/dsa-civil-society-coordination-group-publishes-an-initial-analysis-of-the-major-online-platforms-risks-analysis-reports/ (accessed 25 March 2025).

21.

Ecker

Roozenbeek

van der Linden

, et al. (2024) Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think. Nature 630(8015): 29–32.

22.

Ecker

UKH

Lewandowsky

Cook

, et al. (2022) The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology 1(1): 13–29.

23.

European Commission. (2025) Commission endorses the integration of the voluntary code of practice on disinformation into the digital services act. In: ec.europa.eu. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_505 (accessed 25 March 2025).

24.

European Union (2022) Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065 (accessed 25 March 2025).

25.

Hameleers

(2024) Is the alarm on deception ringing too loudly? The effects of different forms of misinformation warnings on risk perceptions of misinformation exposure. European Journal of Communication 39(4): 360–374.

26.

Hameleers

van der Meer

Vliegenthart

(2022) Civilized truths, hateful lies? Incivility and hate speech in false information – Evidence from fact-checked statements in the US. Information, Communication & Society 25(11): 1596–1613.

27.

Hameleers

van der Meer

TGLA

Dobber

(2024) They would never say anything like this! Reasons to doubt political deepfakes. European Journal of Communication 39(1): 56–70.

28.

Harsin

(2024) Three critiques of disinformation (for-hire) scholarship: Definitional vortexes, disciplinary unneighborliness, and cryptonormativity. Social Media + Society 10(1): 20563051231224732.

29.

IPIE. (2023) Strategies for improving the global information environment: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Available at: https://www.ipie.info/research/sfp2023-1.

30.

Jack

(2017) Lexicon of Lies. Terms for Problematic Information. New York City: Data & Society Research Institute, pp. 1–20. Available at: https://datasociety.net/library/lexicon-of-lies/.

31.

Jahangir

(2025) Tracking recent statements on the enforcement of EU tech laws | TechPolicy.Press. Available at: https://techpolicy.press/tracking-recent-statements-on-the-enforcement-of-eu-tech-laws (accessed 25 March 2025).

32.

Kaplan. (2025) More speech and fewer mistakes. In: Meta. Available at: https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ (accessed 5 March 2025).

33.

King

Phillips

Carley

(2025) A path forward on online misinformation mitigation based on current user behavior. Scientific Reports 15(1): 9475.

34.

Kozyreva

Lorenz-Spreen

Herzog

, et al. (2024) Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour 8(6): 1044–1052. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0. Epub ahead of print 13 May 2024.

35.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

UKH

Cook

(2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6(4): 353–369.

36.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

UKH

Cook

, et al. (2024) Liars know they are lying: Differentiating disinformation from disagreement. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1): 1–14.

37.

Lozano

E. S.

(2025) Digital communication strategies of lobbies in the European Union. Frontiers in Political Science 7. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1543123.

38.

Martel

Rand

(2024) Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers. Nature Human Behaviour 8(10): 1957–1967.

39.

McLoughlin

Brady

Goolsbee

, et al. (2024) Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online. Science 386(6725): 991–996.

40.

Meta. (n.d.) Misinformation | transparency center. Available at: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/misinformation (accessed 2 July 2024).

41.

Moe

(2024) Embrace or leave social media? On the viability of public service media organizations’ strategies facing platform power. European Journal of Communication 39(6): 595–607.

42.

Napoli

(2025) In pursuit of ignorance: The institutional assault on disinformation and hate speech research. The Information Society 41(1): 1–17.

43.

Ohme

Klinger

Jakob (2024) Non-public data access for researchers: Challenges in the draft delegated act of the digital services act | TechPolicy.Press. Available at: https://techpolicy.press/non-public-data-access-for-researchers-challenges-in-the-draft-delegated-act-of-the-digital-services-act (accessed 13 December 2024).

44.

Oversight Board. (2024) Oversight board upholds Meta’s decision in altered video of President Biden case | oversight board. Available at: https://www.oversightboard.com/news/1068824731034762-oversight-board-upholds-meta-s-decision-in-altered-video-of-president-biden-case/ (accessed 26 June 2024).

45.

Paris

Donovan

(2019) Data & Society — Deepfakes and Cheap Fakes. 18 September. New York City: Data & Society Research Institute. Available at: https://datasociety.net/library/deepfakes-and-cheap-fakes/ (accessed 26 June 2024).

46.

Pennycook

Bear

Collins

, et al. (2020) The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science 66(11): 4944–4957.

47.

Pennycook

Rand

(2022) Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nature Communications 13(1): 2333.

48.

Rivas-de-Roca

Pérez-Curiel

Casero-Ripollés

(2024) Effects of populism: The agenda of fact-checking agencies to counter European right-wing populist parties. European Journal of Communication 39(2): 105–121.

49.

Roozenbeek

, et al. (2022) Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking. Judgment and Decision Making 17(3): 547–573.

50.

Van Bavel

, et al. (2021) Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review 15(1): 84–113.

51.

Van der Linden Ecker Lewandowsky (2024) Misinformation is a threat to society – Let’s not pretend otherwise. In: Impact of Social Sciences. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/10/08/misinformation-is-a-threat-to-society-lets-not-pretend-otherwise/ (accessed 8 October 2024).

52.

Van der Linden

Kyrychenko

(2024) A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention. Science 384(6699): 959–960.

53.

Van Dijck

(2021) Governing trust in European platform societies: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Communication 36(4): 323–333.

54.

Van Erkel

PFA

Van Aelst

De Vreese

, et al. (2024) When are fact-checks effective? An experimental study on the inclusion of the misinformation source and the source of fact-checks in 16 European countries. Mass Communication and Society 27(5): 851–876.

55.

Venice Commission. (2025) Urgent report on the cancellation of election results by constitutional courts. CDL-PI(2025)001, 27 January. Venice Commission. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/venice-commission/-/CDL-PI(2025)001-e (accessed 25 March 2025).

56.

Wardle

Derakhshan

(2017) Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. 27. Council of Europe. Available at: https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html.

57.

World Economic Forum. (2025) Global risks report 2025. Global risk report 20th edition. World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/ (Accessed: April 1, 2025).

58.

Ziemer

C-T

Rothmund

(2024) Psychological underpinnings of misinformation countermeasures. Journal of Media Psychology 36(6): 397–409.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Navigating misinformation and disinformation: How definition ambiguity limits the DSA's implementation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material