CIVICUS discusses Facebook owner Meta’s political ad ban in the European Union (EU) with Filip Stojanovski, Director for Partnership and Resource Development at the Metamorphosis Foundation, a civil society organisation (CSO) that works to empower citizens and civil society to defend democracy.

The EU adopted its Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising regulation in March 2024 with the intention of safeguarding democratic processes from disinformation. The regulation’s broad definition of ‘political advertising’ risks treating advocacy campaigns the same as electoral propaganda. Meta’s response has been to impose a complete ban on political and social issue advertising across the EU, citing implementation challenges. This sweeping approach threatens to silence legitimate civil society activity.

What does Meta’s decision say about the power of digital platforms?

The decision of big online platforms, such as Google and Meta, to ban ads on political and social themes, shows the extent to which some private companies can unilaterally reshape discourse. Over the past two decades, digital platforms have become central spaces for public debate, yet they continue to operate as private domains where companies set the rules and change them at will. Such rules are written into user agreements that most people don’t read before clicking ‘I agree’.

In many countries, most people use social media daily, including as their primary source of news and opinion. This gives platforms enormous power to shape public discourse, and their decisions can directly influence the health of democracy.

How will this affect civil society?

The impacts will be severe. For years, ads have been essential for smaller parties, grassroots movements and civil society groups to reach beyond their immediate supporters. Social media ads are relatively cheap and easy to use compared to traditional media. They also allow for targeting audiences by age, geography, interests and languages, which is invaluable for organisations working with specific communities.

Without ads, most CSOs are left with very narrow organic reach. Their content is often deemed not entertaining by algorithms and therefore seen by very few people. If they lose the ability to promote reports, events or emergency responses through ads, their voices risk being drowned out.

Unfortunately, there are few viable alternatives. In 2022, millions of people, including CSOs, abandoned X, formerly Twitter, in protest against its new ownership, but found it very hard to replicate the visibility a large platform like Twitter provides.

Alternative approaches include optimising websites for search engines or using email newsletters. However, these tools help retain existing audiences but rarely expand them. There has not been a breakthrough solution to replace social media visibility.

In contrast, political parties, particularly in the Balkans, don’t rely on ethical advertising methods and instead use manipulative tactics to reach audiences. The ruling Serbian Progressive Party, for instance, operates troll farms that deliberately make offensive or provocative online posts to manipulate public opinion. Other tactics include orchestrated networks of ‘human bots’ to amplify content. Increasingly, they even automate this activity through custom apps to overcome algorithmic limits and push their messages further.

CSOs cannot and should not replicate such practices. Their work is grounded in ethics and human rights, and relies on voluntary support rather than pressure. But this leaves them competing for attention against floods of manipulated or viral content, which makes targeted ads all the more important for their work.

How can privacy be protected without undermining democratic participation?

Privacy concerns about online advertising are legitimate, particularly because it relies on personal data. Any system must comply with data protection standards, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. People are often willing to trade some privacy for the benefits of using social media, but many don’t fully understand the implications.

Regulation is necessary, but there’s always a risk of overregulation or selective enforcement. A blanket ban could deprive people of access to information about social issues, making them practically invisible. This undermines people’s ability to make informed decisions and participate fully in democratic life.