A Personal Inquiry into Progress

Now, in 2025, as the world barrels into new crises—wars of conquest fueled by combat propaganda and political manipulation—I wanted to revisit this issue.

I randomly picked an older EU policy paper, Online Disinformation Ahead of the European Parliament Elections: Towards Societal Resilience, to check what progress, if any, has been made.

Have our politicians followed through on their promises?

Are we any safer from disinformation than we were five years ago?

The 2019 Policy Paper: What Was Recommended?

The 2019 policy brief made several key recommendations to build resilience against disinformation:

  • Hold Social Media Platforms Accountable – Ensure platforms take responsibility for curbing disinformation while maintaining free speech.
  • Protect Media Pluralism – A diverse media landscape dilutes fake news and fosters democratic discourse.
  • Strengthen Fact-Checking and Independent Journalism – Counter false narratives through investigative reporting and verification mechanisms.
  • Enhance Media Literacy (MIL) for Citizens – Teach people how to recognize disinformation and navigate the digital landscape critically.
  • Encourage Academic Research into Disinformation Trends – Provide data access for scholars to analyze evolving disinformation tactics.

These recommendations laid out an ambitious path. But did the EU walk it?

Where Are We in 2025? A Reality Check

Legislative Measures: The Good News

  • Digital Services Act (DSA): Enacted to regulate online platforms, forcing them to remove illegal content, limit disinformation, and increase transparency in political advertising. Non-compliance could result in hefty fines (EU Commission).
  • Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022): A voluntary agreement between platforms and the EU, requiring them to demonetize disinformation, provide ad transparency, and support fact-checking (EU Code of Practice).

Media & Journalism Support: Steps Forward

  • European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO): A fact-checking and research hub that collaborates with journalists, academics, and policymakers to counter disinformation (EDMO).
  • Funding for Independent Media: Under the European Democracy Action Plan, grants have been allocated to investigative journalism and independent media outlets (EU Democracy Action Plan).

Challenges & Failures: The Unfinished Battle

  • Social Media Platforms Resisting Cooperation: In January 2025, Google refused to integrate fact-checking organizations' work into its Search and YouTube services, a major setback for disinformation combat (Politico).
  • Disinformation Tactics Evolving Faster than Regulations: The rise of AI-generated deepfakes, Telegram-based propaganda channels, and decentralized misinformation networks make enforcement difficult.
  • Public Distrust Remains a Problem: Despite fact-checking efforts, studies show a growing segment of the population is skeptical of all media sources, playing into disinformation strategies (Reuters Institute).

Personal Perspective: My Recommendations

I might be nobody politically and even nobody socially, but I have my personal experience with propaganda and its consequences.

I was born in communism, a world in which there was no such thing as truth.

We all inhabited a society where your quality of life depended not on merit but on whom you knew or who you were related to.

So, I look at this from my own perspective, and I believe that relying on the same old channels to address media literacy is shortsighted and inefficient.

To combat black propaganda, you need white propaganda—or, more accurately, culture.

My approach would be to create a hip cultural movement that directly addresses disinformation.

Art, music, film, literature, fashion—popular culture should be leveraged to spread awareness and counteract manipulative narratives.

Instead of dry, institutionalized MIL campaigns, we need storytelling that resonates with people emotionally, intellectually, and aesthetically.

I am surprised that the EU has made some progress but dismayed at their lack of vision.

Bureaucratic solutions move slowly, while disinformation evolves in real time.

Unfortunately, executing such a cultural counter-movement requires resources.

Without strong institutional support, countering disinformation at scale remains frustratingly slow and inadequate.

NAFOForum.org: A Case Study in Bureaucratic Barriers

One attempt to create a vehicle for EU bureaucracy to recognize and work with was NAFOForum.org.

The goal was to offer a way for the EU to collaborate with unconventional actors fighting disinformation.

The good news? The EU granted us a meeting, and we discussed how they could help.

This showed that, at the very least, they are willing to listen and explore unorthodox solutions.

The bad news? It takes forever.

The EU bureaucracy is slow and heartless, built to prevent fraud rather than respond quickly to emerging threats.

They still apply peace-time rules in an era of information warfare.

Reform is needed to ensure that grassroots initiatives can gain support at the speed necessary to counter modern disinformation campaigns.

Conclusion: Are We Any Safer?

The EU has taken significant steps to counter disinformation, particularly with legal frameworks like the DSA and support for fact-checking initiatives.

However, the battle is far from over. Platforms still resist full cooperation, and new disinformation tactics emerge faster than regulatory responses.

So, are we safer? Perhaps marginally and only if we continue adapting. 

In an era where information is both a weapon and a battlefield, legislation alone won’t be enough.

The real question is whether society itself is resilient enough to withstand the next wave of digital deception.

The EU needs a more dynamic, cultural, and strategic approach.

Individuals can help by supporting independent media, engaging critically with news, and pushing for policy changes that prioritize rapid response to evolving threats.

And this was my two cents. Thank you for reading. 

Sources & Further Reading