The ongoing dynamic between social platforms and misinformation has become a central concern as the shift to X, formerly Twitter, has drawn attention for disinformation compared with rivals like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. Across the digital landscape, the spread of false or misleading content remains a challenge watched closely by regulators around the world for its implications on democracy, public health, safety, and environmental responsibility in North America and beyond.
Regulators have documented steady efforts by social networks to curb misinformation. The European Commission’s semiannual Code of Practical Advice on Disinformation, last reported in September 2023, highlights both progress and gaps in how major platforms tackle the problem. The assessment looks beyond the volume of disinformation to how publicly visible and engaging such posts are, and who distributes them.
In a focused cross-country analysis, the study examined 6,155 unique posts and 4,460 unique accounts across Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, X, and YouTube. It considered detectability or discoverability, the relative and absolute engagement of posts, and the actors behind the content, with Poland, Slovakia, and Spain forming the core sample. Google Trends data indicate that in Poland and Slovakia, Facebook and YouTube are among the most popular platforms, while in Spain YouTube leads in popularity after Facebook and Instagram.
When looking at the overall picture, Twitter/X appears to show the most concerning pattern: the highest detectability rate for disinformation among the trio of countries combined, higher than Facebook. In Slovakia, Facebook surpasses Twitter in detectability, while in Poland Twitter leads, with Instagram close behind and Facebook slightly behind. In Spain, Twitter again tops the metric, followed by TikTok.
Looking at relative engagement, Twitter/X stands out as the leading platform, accounting for a substantial multiple of engagement on disinformation posts compared with non-disinformation content. Yet country-level nuance matters: the impact in Spain drives much of this signal, producing higher relative engagement there than in Poland or Slovakia.
Across the platforms, YouTube shows engagement levels near the overall average, with moderation in relative terms, while posts containing disinformation tend to attract lower absolute engagement on platforms other than Twitter/X. However, when measuring relative engagement, Twitter/X ranks highest, driven by strong engagement on disinformation content, even as overall engagement across platforms varies widely.
The report also contrasts absolute volumes and relative intensity by platform. For instance, TikTok exhibits a low relative engagement despite high absolute counts of disinformation interactions, while YouTube demonstrates comparatively robust engagement with a larger audience base. Instagram and LinkedIn tend to report lower discovery and lower engagement for disinformation alike, suggesting different audience dynamics on these networks.
Further, the analysis of actors who spread disinformation shows that Twitter/X and Facebook carry higher distribution rates, with YouTube showing a markedly lower rate. The pattern suggests that some actors behind disinformation posts follow large networks of users but maintain relatively small follower counts, a sign that newly joined accounts or coordinated bursts may play a role in dissemination.
Overall, the findings indicate that platforms with higher discoverability often exhibit higher disinformation activity, with Twitter/X scoring highest on both discovery and distribution metrics, while YouTube remains on the lower end. This combination of discovery and engagement dynamics helps explain why certain platforms become focal points in disinformation campaigns.
These insights are useful for policymakers, platforms, and researchers as they consider how to design safeguards that protect civic discourse while recognizing the different user behaviors across networks. The European Commission’s report underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring, transparent reporting, and tailored interventions that reflect how misinformation spreads in Canada and the United States as well as in Europe, all within a shared global information ecosystem. — European Commission, Code of Practical Advice on Disinformation, September 2023.
Key takeaways show that platform strategies matter more than raw post counts. High discoverability paired with meaningful engagement can amplify misleading content quickly, especially when it leverages cross-platform dynamics and audience behavior. In contrast, platforms with lower discovery and lower engagement may still host pockets of disinformation, particularly within niche communities. Stakeholders should consider not only the volume of content but how it travels, who participates in the conversation, and how moderation and fact-checking efforts influence outcomes across regions.
As evidence accumulates, it becomes clear that the battle against disinformation is not about any single platform but about a constellation of factors—visibility, engagement, the profile of content producers, and the speed with which misinformation can spread. The evolving landscape calls for coordinated approaches that combine robust detection, credible counter-messaging, and accessible media literacy to empower audiences across North America and Europe. The goal remains to safeguard trust in information environments while supporting open, democratic discourse. This adaptive process will continue to shape how platforms, regulators, and researchers work together to address disinformation in a rapidly changing digital world.
It is helpful to remember this, as researchers and regulators compare platform performance and user behavior across regions, seeking strategies that effectively reduce the spread of false content while preserving legitimate expression and information sharing. — European Commission, Code of Practical Advice on Disinformation, September 2023.