Question: Should Social Media Platforms Be Held Liable for Misleading Information? *

Introduction

When they first appeared, about 20 years ago, social media were mainly a source of communication between individuals and companies located in different parts of the globe rather than spreading information. With the development of technology, more platforms have been introduced, such as Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok; and such social media platforms have progressively become a primary source of news and information. While social media platforms are a source of information, the spread of misleading or false information on them has raised a critical question: Should social media companies be legally responsible for the content shared by their users? The EUB Student Debate Club debated on this question. Let us explore both sides of their debate.

Arguments FOR Holding Platforms Liable

1. How Social Media Algorithms Amplify Misinformation

Social media platforms play a decisive role in shaping what information users see. Their algorithms are designed to boost content that generates high engagement, such as likes, shares, comments, and watch time. Unfortunately, misinformation often performs exceptionally well because it is emotional, sensational, or controversial. As a result, false or misleading posts receive disproportionate visibility.

Research consistently supports this pattern. A recent systematic review found that platforms’ “virality logics” reward novelty and emotional intensity over accuracy, creating an environment where misinformation spreads faster and more widely than verified information. Studies have shown that misinformation tends to travel through networks at a higher speed and scale precisely because algorithms pick up on the spikes in engagement and amplify them further (MDPI, 2024).

A clear example emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic. YouTube’s recommendation system frequently surfaced anti-vaccine videos to users searching for health topics. This included conspiracy-based content suggesting that vaccines were harmful, misinformation that was repeatedly pushed to millions of individuals during a critical public-health crisis. Although YouTube later adjusted its policies, the early algorithmic amplification played a significant role in exposing large audiences to false narratives.

In short, algorithms do not merely display misinformation; they supercharge its reach.

2.  Social Media Companies Have the Resources to Moderate Content Effectively — But Often Don’t

Another central issue is that major platforms do have the financial and technological capacity to combat misinformation more effectively. Companies like Meta and X generate enormous revenues. For example, Meta reported over $51 billion in revenue in Q3 2025 alone, the majority of which came from advertising across Facebook and Instagram. This level of profitability demonstrates that they have the resources to invest in large-scale moderation systems.

These companies are also aggressively expanding their AI infrastructure. Meta, for example, has poured billions into advanced AI tools capable of detecting harmful or misleading content. Automated moderation technologies already play a major role on platforms, and research shows they can reduce rule-breaking behaviour when consistently deployed. One study analysing hundreds of millions of Facebook comments found that automated removal of harmful content led to significant declines in future violations; this is evidence that moderation, when applied effectively, works.

Yet despite this capacity, moderation remains inconsistent. Automated systems struggle with context-dependent misinformation, and human moderation is extremely costly at a global scale. Researchers also found that many platforms reduce their moderation efforts in politically sensitive periods or roll back safety measures to prioritise engagement. Analysis of Facebook’s anti-vaccine policies revealed that even when misinformation was removed, anti-vaccine communities quickly reorganised and resurfaced due to the platform’s architecture and engagement incentives.

The problem, therefore, is not a lack of resources but a conflict between public safety and profit-driven design. Platforms could moderate more effectively, but doing so often conflicts with their business model, which is built on maximizing user attention.

Arguments AGAINST Holding Platforms Liable

1. Social Media Platforms Are Not Publishers but Intermediaries for Expression

A central argument against holding platforms legally liable is that social media companies are not traditional publishers. Unlike newspapers or broadcasters, platforms do not create or editorially approve most of the content they host. They function primarily as intermediaries that provide the infrastructure for users to communicate and share information. Treating them as publishers would fundamentally alter the legal nature of the internet.

This distinction is reflected in legislation worldwide, such as Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, which provides that online platforms are not treated as publishers or speakers of user-generated content. Similar protections exist in other jurisdictions, including the EU’s e-Commerce Directive and aspects of the UK’s pre-Online Safety Act 2023. These laws were designed to encourage innovation and free expression by shielding platforms from liability for content they did not author.

If platforms were held liable for every post they host, they would be forced to pre-screen content on a massive scale. Given the billions of posts shared daily, this would be practically impossible. The result would be either the shutdown of open platforms or the imposition of extreme content controls, undermining the open nature of digital communication.

In this sense, platform immunity is not about avoiding responsibility, but about preserving the functional architecture of the internet as a space for broad participation.

2. Legal Liability Might Kill Free Speech

Holding platforms legally liable for misinformation would likely lead to excessive and precautionary censorship. Faced with the threat of lawsuits, fines, or regulatory sanctions, platforms would have strong incentives to remove or suppress any content that might be controversial, ambiguous, or difficult to verify. This would not only affect misinformation but also legitimate political debate, minority viewpoints, satire, and emerging scientific discussions.

Misinformation is often context-dependent. Determining what is “false” can be especially difficult in areas such as public policy, international conflicts, or evolving scientific knowledge. If platforms must err on the side of legal safety, they will remove content pre-emptively, even when it contributes to democratic discourse. This creates a chilling effect where users self-censor, and public debate becomes narrower and less diverse.

Historical experience supports this concern. In jurisdictions with strict intermediary liability regimes, platforms have tended to block lawful speech to avoid legal risk. The fear is that imposing liability transforms platforms into private regulators of truth, granting corporations excessive power over public discourse without democratic accountability.

Thus, while the goal of reducing misinformation is legitimate, legal liability may undermine free expression more broadly by incentivising over-enforcement.

3. Responsibility for Misinformation Ultimately Lies with the Users, Not the Platforms

Another key argument against platform liability is that misinformation is fundamentally a product of individual behaviour. Users choose what to post, share, and believe. Shifting legal responsibility from individuals to platforms risks weakening personal accountability and creating a culture where users externalise blame for their own actions.

Holding users responsible aligns with existing legal principles. Individuals can already face consequences for defamation, fraud, or harmful misinformation, particularly when it causes demonstrable harm. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, several individuals faced legal or professional consequences for spreading demonstrably false medical claims that endangered public health. These cases demonstrate that accountability mechanisms already exist at the user level.

Moreover, expecting platforms to police every post is unrealistic. Automated moderation tools cannot fully understand intent, sarcasm, cultural context, or evolving facts. Human moderation at a global scale is prohibitively complex and prone to error. Imposing liability would not eliminate misinformation but would instead encourage imperfect enforcement.

A more sustainable response focuses on strengthening digital literacy, critical thinking, and media education. Empowering users to assess information critically addresses the root cause of misinformation without compromising freedom of expression or placing disproportionate burdens on intermediaries.

Final Thoughts

The question of whether social media platforms should be held responsible for sharing misleading information cannot be answered in simple terms. It involves balancing freedom of expression, technological limitations, user responsibility, and societal expectations. Rather than placing full responsibility on any single party, the issue highlights the need for ongoing discussion, cooperation, and adaptation as digital communication methods and channels continue to evolve.

*This blog has been contributed by Shahd Alkooheji, Arwa Alofi, Yara Bin Thani