§3.6 After an electoral period

59. After an electoral period, the Commission recommends that providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs conduct a post-election review including an assessment of the effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures employed in that context with a view to adapting the measures, if necessary. This internal report should include an assessment of whether the internal performance metrics and any other assessment criteria were met before, during and after the elections, lessons learned and areas for improvement. 60. The Commission recommends that providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs take into account specific contributions from independent researchers, Civil Society Organisations, and independent fact-checkers on the impact of VLOPs and VLOSEs mitigation measures in the election review exercise. In addition, providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs may engage with established independent election observer groups who may be able to provide information on the use and impact of their services in that context. 61. In particular, the post-election report should include information on the average and distribution of response time for terms and conditions violations, the average and distribution of the response time to flagged content by users and non-state actors, the average and distribution of the reach and engagement of content acted upon, the number of violations of certain policies pertaining to elections, instances of information manipulation and the reach of certain measures such as media literacy initiatives and authoritative initiatives. The Commission may require such reports in a confidential manner (38). 62. The Commission recommends that providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs publish a public version of such post-election review documents. This should include information on actions taken by the provider of VLOPs or VLOSEs and any incidents that might have occurred, as well as information on cooperation and information exchanges that took place with relevant non-state actors during the electoral campaign period. This should include details on actions taken, efficiency and timeliness of such cooperation. This also aims at gathering public feedback on how to improve the risk mitigation measures in place or share successful measures with other providers. As a further example for election related reporting, signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation have developed a reporting template through which they will report ahead of and after elections on their measures taken and relevant metrics regarding their impact.

← 3.5 · All articles · 3.7 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07