From the emicycle...and beyond!

The world of the web today serves as the backdrop for nearly every activity that our daily routines place before us.

This phenomenon, which has grown largely thanks to the widespread use of social networks among young people, is now an essential part of our everyday lives: from online shopping to personal relationships, including work and access to information.

In recent years, our online interactions have significantly increased, bringing to light an issue that is as important as it is delicate: Who ensures safety on the web? How are our personal data used by digital platforms? How can we prevent scams or other illegal behavior?

These questions have led to the need for serious and up-to-date regulation, capable of overseeing online security and the responsibilities of digital platforms.
In response to these concerns, in December 2020 the European Commission proposed two legislative packages (the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act), aimed at establishing a modern and effective legal framework. The plan was formally adopted in 2022 and officially came into effect on February 17, 2024.

The study we propose to examine aims to highlight the presence of various actors who, through different methods and means depending on their field of action, have attempted—some more actively than others—to leave their mark on the legislative process in order to protect their own interests.
The critical importance of the subject matter and its substantial impact on the legal sphere of citizens have indeed made the Digital Services Act a target for the intervention of numerous stakeholders eager to influence the debate.

The motivations driving these actors to take a stand and try to shape the policy-making process are often opposing and conflicting, thus turning the formation of the legislative act into a political, economic, and ideological battleground.

In particular, this article focuses on the role played by the political groups within the European Parliament.

This institution is in fact one of the most important bodies of the European Union, as it represents the will of the citizens. It is the only EU institution whose members have been democratically elected by universal suffrage across all 27 Member States.
Its institutional importance is the result of decades of development and reform. It is worth noting that, at its inception, the European Parliament held only a consultative role. However, starting with the Maastricht Treaty, its functions gradually became more significant, reaching a true institutional turning point with the Treaty of Lisbon.

Today, the European Parliament carries out several key functions, such as oversight and budgetary responsibilities, but its political role stands out above all: together with the European Commission, it contributes to the legislative process within the EU.

To fully understand how it is possible to influence a legislative process, it is essential to first consider the structural organization of this institution:
At present, there are 705 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), elected in the Member States and allocated proportionally according to each state's population size.
Once elected, MEPs are not grouped by nationality but by political orientation, leading to the formation of so-called "political groups".

Given these premises, the starting question for our analysis is therefore: how—and to what extent—can a political group influence the formation of a legislative act (in this case, the Digital Services Act)?

To better illustrate the type of observations and data we aim to examine, a comparison between political groups with opposing orientations proves to be particularly effective.
For this reason, we will analyze how the S&D and PfE have attempted to influence the development of the Digital Services Act, and what tools—both political and otherwise—they have used to do so.

In order to reconstruct the political strategy adopted by the aforementioned political groups, it is essential to analyze the themes and interests that, in opposing and conflicting ways, shape the pressures exerted on the policy-making process.
The first step is structural and concerns the political group itself: what are the principles and ideologies that define a specific parliamentary group?

The acronym S&D stands for "Socialists & Democrats", which is already strongly indicative of the left-wing and progressive orientation that characterizes this political group.
This orientation entails a commitment to values typically associated with the left, such as strong support for European Union policies—aiming to promote an increasingly inclusive and politically integrated climate among Member States—civil rights, and ecological transition.

Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, we find PfE (Patriots for Europe), which is marked by a distinctly more conservative spirit.
The Patriots for Europe are known for their critical stance toward European institutions, often portraying their bureaucratic processes as detached from the everyday realities faced by citizens.
As a result, they advocate for stronger protection of national sovereignty, with all the cultural and sociological implications this entails, ranging from the emphasis on national identity to opposition to mass immigration.

Lastly, but particularly relevant for the purposes of our analysis, is their strong focus on economic policy—often in the form of protective measures and support for local businesses.

 

It is therefore easy to understand the general positions of these two political groups regarding the adoption of the Digital Services Act (DSA):

-        On one hand, the S&D group is strongly in favor of the DSA, viewing it as a powerful tool for the protection of citizens. Moreover, this support is rooted in a belief in a coordinated European leadership, aimed at ensuring greater transparency and control in the digital space.[1]

-        On the other hand, the PfE group is critical of the legislative act, expressing concerns about the EU’s excessive bureaucracy and its interference in matters that, in their view, individual nations should be able to regulate autonomously.[2]

In light of these general premises, we now turn to an analysis of the methods and strategies employed by the political groups in their attempts to influence the formation of the Digital Services Act.
Given that we are dealing with parliamentary groups, it is clear that a significant role is played by what is commonly referred to as the “political battle”. However, in this specific case, the key players who had a crucial impact on the strategies adopted by political groups were not seated in Parliament itself, but rather made their voices heard from the outside.
We are, of course, referring to the lobbying interests that each political group sought to leverage in support of its parliamentary actions.

This is especially true in light of the mutual collaboration between these two spheres: it is certainly true that lobbies finance and support political figures and their election campaigns in order to protect their own interests. At the same time, political groups, thanks to the support of lobbying industries, grow and strengthen to the point of gaining more credibility and capacity to influence policy-making processes.

Drawing also on the research of Michalowitz and Chalmers, our study highlights how interested groups can play a decisive role in shaping the outcome of a legislative process.

Let’s start with the action of the S&D group.
By looking more closely at what was previously highlighted, the official goals of the Socialists & Democrats in promoting and supporting the Digital Services Act are focused on the protection of online users, the fight against disinformation, and transparency in recommendation algorithms.
This entails a fight against the power of Big Tech and an attempt to strengthen the protection of gig economy workers.
These are ambitious objectives that aim to challenge the giants of the global digital market.
To achieve their goal, it was therefore easy to imagine that political strategy alone would not be enough to succeed—hence the leverage on specific lobbying industries.
But which lobbies actually came out in support of the Digital Services Act?

1.     First of all, civil and digital rights organizations. NGOs therefore played an important role, having for years strongly demanded more control over the processing of personal data, greater online transparency, and clear user rights to contest decisions resulting from algorithmic calculations.

2.     Public broadcasters, publishers, and newspapers: essentially the world of traditional media. Their action stems from a call for more serious efforts to combat disinformation, which dominates the web and harms traditional journalism.

3.     Finally, trade unions and workers' associations also played an important role, as many workers see their jobs heavily influenced by regulations relating to the use of digital platforms (e.g., delivery riders).

It is easy to see how the three categories mentioned are very different from each other, yet they share the S&D group’s attention to themes of the “public good” rather than economic interests.

There are clear examples of what has been the action of these NGOs, a symptom of their importance in the strategy adopted by the left.

First and foremost, it is particularly important to mention the letter that as many as 39 NGOs signed and sent to the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen.[3]

The letter expresses concerns about the impact of the Trump administration—also known for taking a stand against limitations on Big Tech—on the actual application and implementation of the Digital Services Act.

Concerns were also fueled by the presence of representatives and executives of the most important digital platforms today (such as Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, ...) at the inauguration ceremony of the new U.S. administration.

In this letter, it is stated that these digital platforms have for years abused their positions and, presumably, could also abuse their powers in this case by putting pressure on European institutions.

In this context, the words of Jan Penfrat, a prominent figure in the European Digital Rights group, are particularly significant:

"Re-introducing contestability, fairness and choice to the digital market will already be a difficult task. If we pause or weaken enforcement, we risk making it impossible. Europe must not be bullied by the likes of Musk and Trump into weakening its DSA and DMA enforcement."[4]

Penfrat also expresses concern that European institutions, in light of recent developments, may no longer enjoy the political support necessary to stand up to market giants, thus calling for a strong and decisive reaction.

 

Also worth noting is the firm stance taken by other international organizations that aim to protect human rights, most notably Amnesty International.

In the position paper published on its channels in March 2021, Amnesty International had already strongly expressed its support and determination for the implementation of the Digital Services Act.

The text clearly shows how the organization welcomes the new regulatory framework and appreciates how it improves transparency regarding the conduct of Big Tech and establishes clear rules for moderating online content.

Amnesty International even goes so far as to suggest additional, even stricter, measures to “fully guarantee the protection of human rights,” urging European institutions to be more ambitious when it comes to protecting their citizens.[5]

 

In clearly opposing positions stands the group of Patriots for Europe.
The political ideology of the group leaves little room for interpretation: particular attention is clearly dedicated to the economic aspect, with a special focus on Big Tech regulation.
Even the right, in fact, recognizes the need for new regulation on Big Tech, but fears the firm approach of the left and prefers a more cautious method.
The main argument against the Digital Services Act reflects these concerns perfectly: there is fear that the limits imposed on digital platforms may actually pose a risk to freedom of expression.
The content moderation proposed by the left is seen as potential censorship, and it is claimed that campaigns against disinformation are merely a tool to silence popular dissent.[6]

Relying on the support of these lobbying industries also carries an important political message.
It is no secret that the PfE group does not enjoy strong support in the European Parliament (due to its nationalist ideology); however, it can still count on a first-rate ally: the United States.[7]
The current U.S. administration supports the concerns of Big Tech and does not hesitate to exert political pressure on European institutions—or on the respective political groups—that have shown approval for the regulation imposed by the Digital Services Act.

There are also examples in this case of the commitment to firmly assert their positions, which above all focus precisely on the thesis that the D.S.A. could threaten freedom of expression.
First of all, the actions proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump certainly stand out, which, predictably, are in clear opposition to the EU’s plans but in full support of the Patriots for Europe’s arguments.
Trump, in fact, publicly attacks the regulations introduced by the Digital Services Act, stating that if America truly wants to become “Great Again” (citing his well-known campaign slogan), one of the first steps must be to guarantee freedom of expression.
It is well known that the Republican President was in the past banned from social platforms such as Twitter and YouTube, and since that moment, the fight against the “censorship imposed by the left” has become one of the most important points on his political agenda.[8]

These political pressures thus fuel the drive of the lobbies and all the Big Tech industries, which have found in him one of the strongest allies they could hope for.
Among the most outspoken and controversial figures, Elon Musk must be mentioned. In addition to having a role as advisor in the Trump administration, he has been the owner of the well-known social platform “X” since March 2023.
In the past, the platform was called “Twitter,” but with his acquisition, Musk chose to send a strong message of change in reaction to what he always considered overly strict communication policies.
That’s how he came to rename the platform “X” and to state that the social network would be a symbol of freedom of expression.
Needless to say, Musk’s actions have sparked numerous controversies, as the less restrictive policies on online behavior on the platform risk leaving room for dangerous and illegal ideologies or actions.[9]

 

Thanks to the studies of Chalmers, we have learned that one of the keys to success for lobbying industries in influencing legislative processes is group unity and alignment in the goals and interests they seek to defend.
Although the examples mentioned represent different categories interested in the DSA, it can be said that in both directions, actions were taken with cohesion and shared purpose.
To understand who did a more effective job, Chalmers teaches us, it will be crucial to understand who managed to influence the direction of the policy-making process and its final outcome.

 

In this context, the political battle takes on new significance.
Strengthened by the support and influence that each group has managed to build behind itself, it then becomes crucial to present, during the plenary sessions of the European Parliament, the plans, concerns, and possible solutions that each group claims to be ready to address.

Over the past four years, there have been numerous parliamentary questions focusing on the topic of the Digital Service Act, all fully aligned with the ideologies of each political group and the strategic alliances that protect interests beyond mere politics.

It is therefore easy to imagine how the S&D group insisted on the need for greater safety for citizens by limiting the power of Big Tech, and, in response, how the PfE group denounced it as an attack on freedom of expression.
A significant example of S&D's speeches in plenary sessions is the Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose, who was appointed as the European Parliament’s negotiator on the D.S.A.

Her speech in January 2022 is particularly meaningful, especially in light of some concerns expressed by neutral political groups (such as the EPP) regarding the promotion of the Digital Service Act.
In her remarks, Schaldemose firmly and clearly reaffirmed the importance of the issues that the legislative document seeks to protect.
Not only did she emphasize the importance of clear regulation on the processing of personal data or the need for stricter rules on the freedom of action granted to digital platforms, but for the first time she also highlighted that the recipients of this directive are not just regular users making online purchases or using search engines, but also children and teenagers who, due to their limited understanding of online dynamics and dangers, are exposed to serious risks to their safety.[10]

While the topics raised by the S&D group certainly deserve attention, the concerns of the Patriots for Europe should not be underestimated either.
For the latter, we refer to two parliamentary questions from group leader Jordan Bardella, submitted four years apart, both of which persist in claiming that the EU is exercising a tacit form of censorship, presumably silencing all dissenting opinions regarding its actions.[11]

In the first parliamentary question, Bardella merely expresses concern about what at the time were only possible provisions of the Digital Service Act draft text.
In the second, however, he cites examples of online content removal and states without hesitation that:
“The D.S.A. was used to introduce arbitrary censorship of free and politically unpalatable speech.”[12]

 

Before moving towards the conclusions of this article and reflecting on the outcome of the opposing attempts to influence the Digital Service Act, it is necessary to mention another powerful tool that can prove decisive for political groups if used properly: the weight of public opinion.

Already in the research studied in class by Chalmers and Versluis, the importance of factors such as issue salience or public opinion itself is underlined. The latter, in fact, can lead a specific political figure (in this case a parliamentary group) to exert greater political pressure due to a so-called democratic legitimization.
Relying on the needs and demands expressed by citizens certainly provides a significant boost.

In the context of the Digital Service Act, one example can be the highly debated topic of online advertising based on user profiling: an already sensitive issue that generated a lot of public outcry, as it was seen as a potential risk for the profiling of minors.[13]

Thus, although the right insisted on acknowledging the need for new regulation—yet characterized by a flexible approach—the left strongly pushed for stricter rules by leveraging citizens’ concerns and their skepticism about the handling of personal data by Big Tech. [14]

The fact that this is one of the points where the S&D group achieved the most success is a clear example of how public opinion, if properly used, is another key element in shifting the balance.

 

We finally arrive at the section of final answers, trying to establish what influence the two political groups ultimately had on the formulation of the provisions of the Digital Service Act.
For both perspectives, we highlighted the main arguments, the challenges, and the objectives that each aimed to achieve.
We saw how both political groups had the intention of protecting European citizens, but being driven by opposing and conflicting goals and concerns, they chose different strategies, and the Digital Service Act turned out to be the battlefield of an important clash between divergent political ideologies.

We saw how both groups made intelligent use of the support shown by their respective interested groups, how they then tried to translate this support into political battle and parliamentary interventions, up to the point of leveraging the needs presented by public opinion.

During our studies, we often revisited Leone’s 1986 quote ("All legislation has winners and losers") and, despite the efforts made by both political groups, this is also the case here.

The final result of the legislation introduced by the Digital Service Act clearly favors the left and the "Socialists and Democrats": the final text includes significant restrictions on Big Tech, greater transparency in the use of digital algorithms, and the removal of content considered dangerous or illegal. [15]

However, the battle is not over; conservatives continue to oppose it and the criticisms raised during the plenary sessions of the European Parliament show no sign of subsiding.

New geopolitical balances could write new chapters in this already much-debated and delicate story.

 

This outcome also finds positive confirmation in the words of Brando Benifei, Member of the European Parliament from the S&D group, whom I had the privilege of interviewing.
Benifei has repeatedly emphasized that the DSA represents much more than a law on online content moderation but rather: “It is a tool to defend democracy in the digital age, and recent geopolitical developments and international news confirm its importance.”

The MEP described the “attack on freedom of speech” narrative promoted by the right as “fanciful” and added:
“The DSA obviously does not limit freedom of expression, it does not regulate what can or cannot be said. It simply overcomes an approach that we developed at the beginning of the 2000s, when the digital world was completely different, namely that digital companies are completely irresponsible for all the content passing through their platforms— a principle that has never been applied in any other context. We have simply overcome this anomaly.”

Benifei ultimately said he is satisfied with the content of the legislative text of the DSA.
He does not deny the importance of extra-political alliances or the key role played by public opinion, but he is keen to highlight the extensive bureaucratic work that was carried out away from the spotlight:
“The different political groups are proportionally represented in the Committees, which are the real places where policy content is defined at the parliamentary level. To assert one's position – in addition to the mere strength of numbers, which matters – the various Rapporteurs are essential, as they play a crucial role in drafting the legislative measure and representing the group's position in the writing of amendments, for example. Their role is also fundamental in trilogues with the Council and the Commission. Resolutions and opinions are also very important, as they are a significant tool of political influence.
In the case of the DSA, the dossier was assigned to the IMCO committee (Internal Market and Consumer Protection), where the S&D group played a central role thanks to the appointment of the lead rapporteur, Hon. Christel Schaldemose.
In addition to formal tools, the dialogue with civil society, universities, trade associations, and market actors is fundamental, with whom we build a continuous exchange.”

Now the challenge of the Digital Service Act is its enforcement; its success will in fact depend on the ability of national authorities and the Commission to apply it rigorously.

 

 

---

[1] https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/publications/sds-additional-measures-response-social-media-issues

[2] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/46834

[3] https://www.globalist.it/world/2025/01/29/le-ong-chiedono-a-ursula-von-der-leyen-di-non-farsi-intimidire-da-trump-e-musk-sulle-normative-tech/

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/29/europe-must-not-be-bullied-by-trump-and-musk-on-tech-laws-ngos-say

[5] https://www.amnesty.eu/news/amnesty-international-position-on-the-proposals-for-a-digital-services-act-and-a-digital-markets-act/

[6] https://constitutionaldiscourse.com/the-eu-digital-services-act-and-freedom-of-expression-friends-or-foes/

[7] https://eu.boell.org/en/2025/02/18/trump-vs-europe-role-digital-services-act

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/technology/trump-administration-speech-policy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[9] https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musks-x-eu-safe-space-free-speech-digital-services-act/

[10] https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/channel/digital-services-act-people

[11] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/questions/ecrites/2020/003930/P9_QE(2020)003930_EN.pdf

[12] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2024-001375_EN.html

[13] https://epd.eu/news-publications/civic-discourse-and-electoral-processes-in-the-risk-assessment-and-mitigation-measures-reports-under-the-digital-services-act-an-analysis/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[14] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-digital-services-act

[15] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689357/EPRS_BRI(2021)689357_EN.pdf