Author
Listed:
- Sara Monaci
(Inter-university Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
- Simone Persico
(Inter-university Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
Abstract
The introduction of the Digital Services Act (DSA) by the EU marks a fundamental step in the governance of social media platforms, by outlining content-moderation guidelines aimed at preventing disinformation and the systemic risks related to the “business of polarization” for the digital public sphere (Geese, 2023). According to others (Husovec, 2023b), DSA is an ambitious legal framework that must be tamed in consideration of the priorities of different stakeholders: platforms, legislators at the European and national level, journalists responding to the challenges of fact-checking, and citizens entitled to participate in a safe and non-discriminatory public sphere. Thanks to a critical approach (Van Dijck, 2021; Zuboff, 2019), the article discusses how platforms manage controversial political influencers: the ideological entrepreneurs. From the point of view of the empirical analysis, the essay identifies ambiguities in the DSA text that neither clarify the role of ideological entrepreneurs nor explicitly outline the concept of disinformation. Furthermore, a longitudinal analysis (18 months) of the content moderation measures implemented in compliance with the DSA and accessible thanks to the DSA Transparency Database, shows that social media platforms tend to privilege temporary measures such as accounts suspension, rather than more effective actions such as deplatforming (Van Dijck et al., 2023). This reflects ongoing tensions in the regulation of digital services, especially when balancing innovation in governance with the protection of the democratic information environment. As a result, the article highlights a double-standard policy adopted by platforms towards the influencers: On one side they actively contribute to feeding the flow of disinformation and fake news, but on the other hand, they enable platforms to generate visibility and traffic, thus reinforcing the “business of polarization” typical of surveillance capitalism.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v13:y:2025:a:9471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.