The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South 2. European Union or speaker of any information provided by another content provider,” and Section 230(c)(2) further protects the platforms’ right to moderate content in good faith including the removal of offensive, harmful, or objectionable material without losing immunity.[8] The disinformation campaigns that circulated widely during the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections highlighted the harmful impact of algorithm-driven amplification and underscored how difficult it is to strike a fair balance between protecting free expression and ensuring public accountability in the digital space. 20 This law was designed to foster innovation and free expression during the early years of the internet, ensuring that new platforms could emerge without the fear of constant litigation. The First Amendment further strengthens this approach by prohibiting government censorship, thereby protecting both individual users and private companies from state interference. This principle was further reaffirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case, Moody v. NetChoice (2024)[9], where the Court struck down state laws attempting to restrict platforms’ content moderation practices, the court recognised social media platforms discretion similar to editorial discretion of traditional publishers. This ruling also underscored the U.S.’s commitment to treating online platforms as private entities with constitutional protections of free speech, rather than public utilities subject to strict regulation. However, Section 230’s sweeping protections are not absolute. They do not extend to violations of federal criminal law such as the distribution of child sexual abuse material or to intellectual property infringements, which are instead governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Over time, the oncecelebrated immunity provision has become one of the most contested areas of internet law, as the digital ecosystem has evolved and online harms have multiplied. Many critics believe that the broad immunity granted under Section 230 has allowed online platforms to avoid taking responsibility for the spread of false information, hate speech, harassment, and deepfake content, all of which carry serious social and political repercussions.[10] The disinformation campaigns that circulated widely during the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections highlighted the harmful impact of algorithm-driven amplification and underscored how difficult it is to strike a fair balance between protecting free expression and ensuring public accountability in the digital space.[11] Platform Regulations Across the Globe The European Union (EU) has long taken a proactive and rightsbased approach to regulating platforms, aiming to create a safer, fairer, and more transparent online environment. Unlike the United States, where platform liability is limited by Section 230, the EU’s framework has evolved around the principles of accountability, user protection, and market fairness. The E-Commerce Directive (2000) was the EU’s foundational law for online intermediaries. It introduced the concept of “safe harbour”, protecting platforms from liability for illegal content uploaded by users as long as they acted “expeditiously” to remove it upon gaining actual knowledge. This notice-andtakedown model reflected an early attempt to balance innovation with responsibility, ensuring platforms could grow without constant litigation while still being compelled to respond to unlawful material.[12] However, the rapid expansion of social media and online marketplaces revealed the limitations of this model. Platforms had become not just hosts but active curators of online content, shaping public discourse, amplifying misinformation, and influencing elections. The EU began recognizing that the earlier legal framework was insufficient to handle all emerging challenges such as hate speech, disinformation, targeted advertising, algorithmic bias, and monopoly power among tech giants.[13] This led to a major shift in the EU’s digital regulatory landscape with the introduction of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in 2022. The DSA focuses on transparency, accountability, and systemic risk management, imposing obligations on platforms to assess and mitigate harms related to disinformation, illegal content, and threats to fundamental rights. It mandates clearer content moderation procedures, transparency in algorithmic decision-making, and independent auditing for Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs). Platforms must provide users with clear and easily accessible information about their terms of service, redressal mechanisms, and remedies in machinereadable language. When an order is issued by a judicial or administrative authority for the removal of illegal content or to disclose user information, the platform must inform the user about the available channels for appeal and redress. In cases of content removal or account suspension, users must Platform Regulations Across the Globe Platforms must provide users with clear and easily accessible information about their terms of service, redressal mechanisms, and remedies in machine-readable language. 21