Read the original research article here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/poi3.417
cited as: Meyer, T., & Vetulani‐Cęgiel, A. (2025). Transparency as an empty signifier? Assessing transparency in EU and platform initiatives on online political advertising and actors. Policy & Internet, 17(1), e417.
Authors:
Agnieszka Vetulani-Cęgiel, The Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Trisha Meyer, the Brussels School of Governance, The Vrije Universiteit, Brussel
Editor:
Wenjia Tang, Media and Communications, University of Sydney, Australia
Political debate increasingly takes place on online platforms. While this offers new opportunities to amplify ideas, reach wider audiences, and engage directly with political actors, it also poses significant risks to democratic processes. In the digital age, practices of political disinformation and deceptive advertising can fuel populism, increase polarisation, and undermine fair elections. High-profile cases like the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the riots at the US Capitol have intensified political and regulatory scrutiny of how technology companies shape digital public spheres through algorithms, data practices, content moderation, and advertising policies.
Against this backdrop, recent research examines EU policy on political advertising alongside the content moderation practices of major online platforms. It focuses on “transparency” in public debate and the responsibility of platforms for allowing political content, and asks: How the European Union and online platforms operationalise ‘political advertising’ and ‘transparency’? On the EU side, the article analyses the Strengthened Code of Practice (now Code of Conduct) on Disinformation and the Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising. On the platform side, it examines policies and practices of Google, Mastodon, Meta, Microsoft, Telegram, TikTok, and Twitter/X undertaken to moderate political actors and advertising. Among these platforms, only Google and Meta allowed political advertising in the EU.
The analysis shows that EU guidance on political advertising prioritises definitions, labelling requirements, advertiser verification, and the creation of ad libraries, and it is also where responsibility is placed on tech companies. Yet, further investigation into Google and Meta practices reveals notable gaps between regulatory expectations and meaningful, user-facing transparency. It remains unclear who these tools are intended to serve.
In practice, transparency appears oriented toward regulatory compliance rather than empowering users, journalists, or researchers. Platforms typically report aggregate figures of accepted, labelled, or rejected ads, but do not explain the reasoning behind moderation decisions. Information on whether ads are rejected for being misleading, unlawful, or abusive is generally unavailable. As a result, the moderation of political advertising remains largely invisible. In turn, available data on spending levels and targeting parameters offer some insight into who can afford political visibility online. But it stops short of explaining how political advertising actually operates. Crucially, it remains unclear how current transparency measures contribute to “open and fair political debate,” reduce manipulation, or help voters make informed decisions, as envisaged in the EU Regulation. The gap between transparency and trust, therefore, remains substantial.
Meanwhile, the mediating power of online platforms in digital public spheres is undeniable. In response to regulatory complexity, Google and Meta have now also chosen to prohibit political advertising altogether, effectively sidestepping the policy focus. While national laws vary and EU rules are complex, these choices matter. Whether platforms allow or ban political and issue-based advertising, they actively shape the boundaries of acceptable political speech. Given the opacity of algorithmic systems, restricting political advertising does not produce neutrality. Instead, it often disadvantages smaller political actors, leaving them dependent on engagement-driven algorithms rather than principles of balance or fairness. Besides, inconsistent approaches to issue-based advertising create grey zones around what paid political content is permissible.
Overall, this reveals a narrow regulatory focus on platform transparency obligations, rather than on political actors, and the polarising content they produce. We argue that platform transparency here functions as an “empty signifier”: rhetorically powerful but limited in practice. Framed as a prerequisite for accountability and responsibility, transparency risks becoming a market-friendly solution that primarily benefits platforms, rather than a meaningful intervention into the role that platforms and political actors play in shaping—and polarising—digital public spheres.
Know more about our authors:
Agnieszka Vetulani-Cęgiel is Associate Professor at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, where she heads the Research Unit of Politics and Governance of Digitalisation. Her research focuses on interest group lobbying at various policy-making levels. She is also interested in how increasing digitalisation in public spheres affects actors’ political engagement.
Trisha Meyer is Associate Professor in Digital Governance and Participation at the Brussels School of Governance of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, where she leads the Centre for Digitalisation, Democracy and Innovation. Her research focuses on the regulatory push toward and societal consequences of tech platforms’ content moderation practices.