When Transparency Falls Short: Auditing Platform Moderation During a High-Stakes Election

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19285v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:52:27 GMT
• Title: When Transparency Falls Short: Auditing Platform Moderation During a High-Stakes Election
• Abstract summary: We analyze 1.58 billion self-reported moderation actions by the eight largest social media platforms in Europe over an eight-month period.<n>We found that platforms did not exhibit meaningful signs of adaptation in moderation strategies.<n>Initial concerns regarding platforms' transparency and accountability still persist one year after the launch of the Transparency Database.
• Score: 3.6854695809743503
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: During major political events, social media platforms encounter increased systemic risks. However, it is still unclear if and how they adjust their moderation practices in response. The Digital Services Act Transparency Database provides-for the first time-an opportunity to systematically examine content moderation at scale, allowing researchers and policymakers to evaluate platforms' compliance and effectiveness, especially at high-stakes times. Here we analyze 1.58 billion self-reported moderation actions by the eight largest social media platforms in Europe over an eight-month period surrounding the 2024 European Parliament elections. We found that platforms did not exhibit meaningful signs of adaptation in moderation strategies as their self-reported enforcement patterns did not change significantly around the elections. This raises questions about whether platforms made any concrete adjustments, or whether the structure of the database may have masked them. On top of that, we reveal that initial concerns regarding platforms' transparency and accountability still persist one year after the launch of the Transparency Database. Our findings highlight the limits of current self-regulatory approaches and point to the need for stronger enforcement and better data access mechanisms to ensure that online platforms meet their responsibilities in protecting the democratic processes.

Related papers

• Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media [124.26693978503339]
  Social media platforms have traditionally relied on independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content.<n>X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking.<n>We examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T14:50:18Z)
• A Year of the DSA Transparency Database: What it (Does Not) Reveal About Platform Moderation During the 2024 European Parliament Election [5.170641855075114]
  We analyze 1.58 billion self-reported moderation actions taken by eight large social media platforms.<n>Our findings reveal a lack of adaptation in moderation strategies.<n>These results highlight the limitations of current self-regulatory approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T15:31:01Z)
• On the Use of Proxies in Political Ad Targeting [49.61009579554272]
  We show that major political advertisers circumvented mitigations by targeting proxy attributes. Our findings have crucial implications for the ongoing discussion on the regulation of political advertising.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:15:13Z)
• MisinfoEval: Generative AI in the Era of "Alternative Facts" [50.069577397751175]
  We introduce a framework for generating and evaluating large language model (LLM) based misinformation interventions. We present (1) an experiment with a simulated social media environment to measure effectiveness of misinformation interventions, and (2) a second experiment with personalized explanations tailored to the demographics and beliefs of users. Our findings confirm that LLM-based interventions are highly effective at correcting user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T18:16:50Z)
• Automated Transparency: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of the Digital Services Act Transparency Database [6.070078201123852]
  The Digital Services Act (DSA) was adopted on 1 November 2022 with the ambition to set a global example in terms of accountability and transparency. The DSA emphasizes the need for online platforms to report on their content moderation decisions (statements of reasons' - SoRs) SoRs are currently made available in the DSA Transparency Database, launched by the European Commission in September 2023. This study aims to understand whether the Transparency Database helps the DSA to live up to its transparency promises.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T17:51:20Z)
• The DSA Transparency Database: Auditing Self-reported Moderation Actions by Social Media [0.4597131601929317]
  We analyze all 353.12M records submitted by the eight largest social media platforms in the EU during the first 100 days of the database.<n>Our findings have far-reaching implications for policymakers and scholars across diverse disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-16T00:02:49Z)
• A User-Driven Framework for Regulating and Auditing Social Media [94.70018274127231]
  We propose that algorithmic filtering should be regulated with respect to a flexible, user-driven baseline. We require that the feeds a platform filters contain "similar" informational content as their respective baseline feeds. We present an auditing procedure that checks whether a platform honors this requirement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T17:53:34Z)
• Auditing Recommender Systems -- Putting the DSA into practice with a risk-scenario-based approach [5.875955066693127]
  European Union's Digital Services Act requires platforms to make algorithmic systems more transparent and follow due diligence obligations. These requirements constitute an important legislative step towards mitigating the systemic risks posed by online platforms. But the DSA lacks concrete guidelines to operationalise a viable audit process. This void could foster the spread of 'audit-washing', that is, platforms exploiting audits to legitimise their practices and neglect responsibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T10:48:37Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy [61.60099467888073]
  We show how linking administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias. We show that older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-14T02:04:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.