A new YouGov study of seven EU countries – France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain – examines public attitudes social media regulation and banning political advertising from…
To celebrate the launch of YouGov’s new European Political monthly survey, a new YouGov study of seven EU countries – France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain – examines public attitudes social media regulation and banning political advertising from social platforms.
The French are the most likely to think that social media regulations are too relaxed, at 53%, with the plurality of people in the Netherlands (47%), Germany (42%), and Italy (38%) saying the same.
By contrast, Spaniards, Poles and Romanians are more closely split between those who think regulations are too lax and those who think they are about right. Relatively few in any country think that social media laws are too tight, with this figure highest in Romania at 18%.
There is particularly widespread support for banning political adverts from social media platforms in Spain (66%), France (57%) and Poland (53%), with half of Germans (50%) also agreeing.
In Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania, the public proves divided, with only a two-point gap separating each side of the argument.
While the political landscapes of each country differ greatly, our results do show that voters for far-right parties are generally more opposed to political advertising bans on social media.
For instance, in Germany, net support for such a ban is +46 among voters for the centre-left Greens, +27 for the centre-right CDU, +8 among the centre-left SDP, and -12 among the far-right AfD.
We see the same general outcome in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania – although notably not in Spain, where net support among VOX voters is generally as high as among other major parties.
(Please note, in cases where the far-right vote in a country is small, or fractured, it was not always possible to gather a sample large enough for each party to show. The same also applies for other parties).
Similarly, voters for far-right parties are generally the least likely to say that social media regulations are too relaxed. This may be less to do with political ideology and more to do with partisanship – it is possible that such voters expect that tighter regulation might be used to disadvantage their parties. Notably, in Italy – currently governed by the far-right Fratelli d’Italia – this party’s voters are the most likely to think regulations are too relaxed.
Read the original article
Comments
Note how lots of slicing is provided on a bunch of dimensions except the one that really matters: age groups. Fully willing to bet 60+ is both more likely to answer these surveys and very pro-censorship. If we weighted this survey by remaining life expectancy I bet the results would be inverted.
The youth tend to be much less absolutists for free speech and don't value anonymity as much as the elders of the internet(!), at least that's my observation. They are much more familiar with people who are into all these things for the profits and don't idealise the WWW as the old folks used to. My guess is that they were born in already corrupt world where online professionals were doing everything for money and dirty tricks like rage baiting and astroturfing were already the norm and as a result they don't have a grand mission fantasy about the internet. Also, because they were born in an already online world they don't see the disturbances of trolls as disturbances in their online persona that is a toy for their real persona, they see trolls as trouble makers to their real persona which is fused with their online persona.
Back in the day of forums personal banning wasn't a thing, we had to see everything until someone did something bad enough to be deplatformed from the forum. In the current social media, you can just block people you don't like, you don't have to endure their "content".
The censorship is built-in in modern platforms. I prefer the old ways personally but in the old days the profile of the people was different.
> but in the old days the profile of the people was different.
in the old days there were actual people, today most “social” media is not people
By sfdlkj3jk342a 2025-12-256:182 reply > today most “social” media is not people
Do you have any evidence to support that?
People frequently claim the majority of social media is "bots", but I highly doubt that.
By mrtksn 2025-12-256:34 Not people doesn't mean that they must be bots, IMHO it means not people who are having opinions but social media workers or entrepreneurs who are having opinions based on metrics that fulfill their KPI which are often stuff like increase engagement, increase followers, increase revenue, get a talking point into the trends, make people talk about a brand or a politician etc. Many large accounts on Twitter are openly corporate accounts of some social media companies and many others are freelancers.
People are not having concerned citizen ideas 24 hours a day everyday, those are obviously professionals who are having concerns about the society, race, jews etc in order to fulfill some goals. Those are not real people, you won't be able to change their minds with argumentation because they don't speak their mind in first place. That's for Twitter of course, in other places they have other productions like "tradwifes" on Instagram or reviewers on Youtube. They are all businesses or indies trying to become businesses. They all use analytics and do A/B testing to acquire and steer their content ideas to the platforms liking. Platforms decide what will be shown to the users, they of course need to run their own business and they also pursue their own KPIs but as cost of doing business they allow other businesses to insert their KPI into the algorithm in exchange of money or favors. For example when there's a new movie release upcoming they can pay the platform to boost engagement on content about their movie, platforms also incentivize the creation of such content by paying certain influencers if they create a content that feeds into the campaign(i.e. if they do a dance from a movie that is being promoted they get paid if their dance video meets the quota). They can do all this for consumer products but they can do it for political stuff too.
Almost no genuine content, its all one big reality show all orchestrated by the big tech. I mean sure, there is genuine content but they are all fillers or trying to win against the flow.
By bdangubic 2025-12-2515:16 just google it ( https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+of+twitter+is+bots+... ) and then go through what you believe is right and makes sense to you. I don’t use social media myself for over 6 years now but when I take my wife’s phone I haven’t seen many people anywhere other than influencers :)
The irony is that youth are simulatenously the biggest consumers of (new) social media, and the staunchest haters [EDIT: this is directly contradicted by the research article I found below…]. I can’t find the source so take it with a grain of salt, but I’ve read that something like 80% of TikTok users under some age think they’d be happier if it didn’t exist and/or wish it didn’t exist.
I don’t think this is really an issue of censorship to a lot of people (though that may be how it shakes out in the government) but rather of control over their digital environment and sanity.
EDIT: I don’t think this is what I’m remembering, but it has concrete numbers somewhat lower than I thought (48% of teens think social media harms people their age, but only 14% think it harms them personally) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social...
By throw-the-towel 2025-12-2421:36 It's not even irony? They want to quit, but it's too hard.
By schmookeeg 2025-12-2420:561 reply I assume people in government, at some level, are weighting constituent inputs by taxes paid. Which keeps it upright. :)
There's absolutely weighing on money, but it's not from taxes.
They'll be weighing constituents by their ability and willingness to give campaign donations and other favors.
By frm88 2025-12-256:41 The article is about Europe. In Europe, parties are publicly funded and donations are strictly limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_European_political_...
Interesting, that you equal social media regulation = pro censorship. Btw every age group over 30 has a majority to imitate Australian model in Germany. Even lower 30 there is only a small relative majority against it. So no, your hypothesis for Germany is wrong. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/social-media-verbot-deuts...
By carlosjobim 2025-12-2421:062 reply It's in the name. Any media regulation is some kind of censorship.
No it is not necessarily. For example forcing to have a chronical timeline on followers would be strong social media regulation but no censorship even in the broadest terms.
If I'm unable to publish something that I otherwise would, that is de facto censorship.
By exceptione 2025-12-2421:472 reply [flagged]
By carlosjobim 2025-12-2422:211 reply The question isn't if some censorship is good or bad. The question is if media regulation is censorship, and the answer is yes.
By exceptione 2025-12-2422:46 If you want to say "Enforcing regulation equals censorship", that is fine by me. For many, there could be a difference between them, as they reserve censorship to unjust regulation.
That would be a matter of linguistics, and I can't say which of both definitions is true.
You did. By being born in a nation and getting automatic citizenship. If you don't like it, you can leave
By carlosjobim 2025-12-2514:11 Leave the planet? On Santa's reindeer sleigh?
It has nothing to do with consent. As soon as you are born Jus soli comes into play. You are given citizenship and you are now subject to the laws.
By llmslave2 2025-12-2511:39 Ok but the parent commentator invoked a contract. If there is no consent there is no contract. Simply stating that one is bound by laws isn't a justification, it's just an observation.
By password54321 2025-12-2421:071 reply Maybe we should listen to those that have more experience and perspective of living without social media as they can see the difference of having/not having it more clearly?
By adventured 2025-12-2421:09 Or they fail to properly grasp its value accordingly.
> favors more tech regulation
You mean "social media regulation". Not "tech regulation".
I think they might also mean surveillance tech, like plate readers and facial recognition.
By fancyfredbot 2025-12-2420:232 reply The article contains the questions they asked. The questions are only asking about social media. Specifically whether social media is sufficiently regulated and whether political advertising should be allowed on social media.
It does not mention surveillance, and it's not about tech in general. The title is misleading. (Edit: the OP kindly updated the title and it's no longer misleading)
I'm almost positive a lot of HN Users don't read the studies they comment on. They probably don't even read the articles.
Which, ironically, given the topic of this post, speaks to the kinds of pathologies we find out on social media these days.
By andersa 2025-12-2420:44 The comments are often more interesting than the original articles.
By nis0s 2025-12-2523:18 Admittedly, I skimmed through the article, but there’s an ongoing discussion around regulation of biometrics, other personal indicators, and privacy (not covered in this article).
By andsoitis 2025-12-2514:51 > I think they might also mean surveillance tech, like plate readers and facial recognition.
How should we square that with EU politicians pushing for MORE surveillance, not less? One of many examples: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/eu-dig...
By amarant 2025-12-2420:10 Social media tech, and surveillance tech, but I repeat myself
By notahacker 2025-12-2420:20 And "don't build Skynet[1] or LLM overlords that can overpower us through the sheer power of their intellect"
[1]the UK calls its military satcomms network that, but we've always been different...
By alphager 2025-12-2420:19 Not just social media. Amazon misusing is monopoly powers is also smack in the middle of the target.
By snowpid 2025-12-2420:35 changed it. Thanks.
From reading the page the study “examines public attitudes social media regulation and banning political advertising from social platforms.”
The question: To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose banning political adverts from being shown on social media platforms?
They conclude with: Voters for far-right parties are frequently less likely to support banning of political advertising on social media … and less likely to think regulations are too lax … typically less likely to think social media regulations are too relaxed (with Italy being an exception).
> They conclude with: Voters for far-right parties are frequently less likely to support banning of political advertising on social media
Maybe the issue here is that many political options have social media and underground marketing as their only option due to heavy bias and censorship on European traditional media.
Even the term used here "far right" is an euphemism for opinions not approved by governing European regimes.
By fancyfredbot 2025-12-2421:031 reply We can see specifically which parties You Gov classify as far right.
AfD in Germany. Le Pen in France. Fratelli d’Italia in Italy. VOX in Spain. PVV in the Netherlands.
I do not know that any of those parties would seriously disagree with their classification as far right.
By fancyfredbot 2025-12-2421:201 reply For the purposes of the survey the term refers to a specific list of specific parties. There's no semantic void here!
By kergonath 2025-12-2423:05 Stop hurting their feelings when they are telling you they’re oppressed!
I dont think the proletariat will beat up jews or gay men on the street which is one assoziation I have for far right.
You would be surprised that "far right" AfD is the most pro Jew party in Germany, polling at first place among Jews.
AfD party later is gay and merited with a coloured migrant lay.
But hey, they beat gays and Jews. Probably kick kittens and puppies too.
Most important jewish organisations are fighting against the afd.
https://www.zentralratderjuden.de/presse/juden-gegen-die-afd...
By OKRainbowKid 2025-12-2422:371 reply And AFD members are using "LGBTQ" as a deragatory term. They are most definitely hostile towards queer people.
As some members of other parties too. And yet, of all German parties, only AfD has an openly gay leader. A lesbian married to an immigrant woman.
By OKRainbowKid 2025-12-2423:181 reply So what? That changes nothing about their policies and views.
Ernst Röhm was one of the most powerful people in early Nazi Germany and famously gay. And still, the NSDAP brutally and systemically persecuted queer people.
You act as if hypocrisy, bigotry, moral flexibility and opportunism weren't core "virtues" of far right populists.
With Röhm you are close to Goodwin. The difference is Röhm was hiding his sexual preferences, while Weidel is pretty open about it. Röhm was killed because of it by his party members. Weidels sexual preference is a non issue for AfD members.
Your comparison with Röhm just shows once more that AfD policies are quite opposite to those of the NSDAP.
By snowpid 2025-12-2518:34 what? is this serios? to quote my link from the most major jewish organisation:
"Die Zeit der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft mit Millionen getöteter Juden, Sinti und Roma, Homosexueller und politisch Verfolgter ist für den Fraktionsvorsitzenden der AfD lediglich ein „Vogelschiss“. Die darin zum Ausdruck gebrachte Haltung verharmlost in unerträglicher Weise die Gräuel der Geschichte. So wie vor wenigen Jahren bei Pegida oder in Chemnitz laufen AfD-Politiker nun bei Querdenker-Demos neben Hooligans und Rechtsextremen. "
Maybe get out of your buble. Most jewish and gay people despise the AfD. Most jewish and gay people want to leave the country in case of AfD majority. But hey Im talking to an account calling the AfD "most pro-jewish" party.
By kergonath 2025-12-2423:07 > You would be surprised that "far right" AfD is the most pro Jew party in Germany, polling at first place among Jews.
Pro-Israel. Xenophobic nationalists known their kind. The interesting bit is that they are both pro-Israel and antisemitic.
Yes, that is an opinion you are supposed to have. You are supposed to associate the regime's class enemies with nazis and communists so that their claims can be dismissed without a single rational thought. "They beat up jews and gays!" is a great way to avoid having a difficult conversation about the regime's blatantly hostile policies against their own people.
By rorylawless 2025-12-2420:501 reply What collective term would you use to describe the parties referenced in the poll?
By miroljub 2025-12-2513:41 Opposition.
"Regime" is a popular among populists euphemism for elected governments they wish to topple.
I like Encyclopedia Britannica‘s definition [0]:
> It [regime] is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world.
By h4xx0r1337 2025-12-258:05 >repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate That is a very good description of the EU.
By miroljub 2025-12-2421:14 I use regime for my government exactly because that's how they call governments they don't like.
Seems like they don't like when their citizens apply the same terminology.
Maybe the "far right" is a good description. E.g. AfD. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_f%C3%BCr_Deutschla...
Which of actual AfD policies are actually far right?
EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
By master-lincoln 2025-12-2421:251 reply Not sure about their policies, but there have been many expressions from AfD politicians which are not in line with the German constitution.
By sunaookami 2025-12-2422:031 reply The current government constantly violates the consitution, they are still trying to implement Vorratsdatenspeicherung which was ruled illegal by the constitutional court. The former government tried to change how elections work with the goal of kicking out opposition parties. And for the current elections there still wasn't a needed re-count because the organisation that needs to approve a re-count is the current government themselves. How is any of that in line with the consitution? It's ever only an argument when it's the "side I don't like".
By miroljub 2025-12-2423:41 It’s funny when people blame opposition for things regime says they would do if they come to power, but tolerate all autocratic tendencies of the current regime. The self-elected one, as you point out.
Edit: self-approved is better term, since without recount of votes we still don’t know if current regime has a majority.
By saubeidl 2025-12-2421:22 > Which of actual AfD policies are actually far right?
What about most of them? Just look at who they are teaming with in the European Parliament. Or what they say about themselves. That should give you a hint.
> I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Right. It’s just what (((they))) want you to believe.
So, you don’t like their coalition parters in the eu parliament?
And you didn’t list a single far right policy of AfD.
How about just naming one actual far right AfD policy so we can bring discussion from feeling back to facts.
By snowpid 2025-12-2518:42 I named various one of them and other provide some links.. You just called the AfD pro-jewish party while most jews despite the party. I think you might just be to check the sources.
By gloryjulio 2025-12-2421:201 reply Whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right
Calling everyone you don’t are far right and nazi is belittling of the real nazis.
Edit since I can’t answer: I’m not referring to this thread. It’s German regime outlets calling their opponents Nazis and far right.
By gloryjulio 2025-12-2423:56 To you edit: Again, you are ignoring the issue I raised: Whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right.
This is about the actual fact about whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany. So I would take it as you are dodging the question and you are agreeing with my previous criteria:
The people or organization whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany issues would be considered as far right.
By gloryjulio 2025-12-2423:40 I am saying the act of whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right. Do you agree that this happened?
No one is calling everyone nazi in this thread. Who are you referring to?
By ben_w 2025-12-2421:29 > EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Well, if you ignore all the evidence you consider inconvenient, you could, you know, read their own self-description as "right wing" and combine that with the observation of them being too right wing for the other right wing parties.
By snowpid 2025-12-2421:20 you are here https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-verfassung... "EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime" Maybe they just publish what you don't like. They are a left outlet but certainly not pro government.
By intended 2025-12-252:56 Yes? The Primae Noctis party would largely be “censored” in current social circles.
The fact that we can use money to saturate the information economy, and create the perception of validity, is a form of market manipulation that is used extensively today. See “Intelligent Design” for a great example of how that was applied in America.
These ideological beach heads are strategized and implemented by media consultants, and media owners. Yet this is protected speech. All the while actual fact checkers, researchers and content moderation efforts are censorial.
This super simplistic interpretation of how speech operates in the modern world is now more abused by attackers, than of explanatory value to defenders.
I would really love if people were somehow more interested in the way modern persuasion techniques are applied. At least that way we would have more interesting conversations on how to have checks and balances that work.
By nutjob2 2025-12-263:45 Many people find far right views repugnant so they don't want to repeat or endorse them.
What you call "censorship" and "bias" is just people disagreeing with you.
By kergonath 2025-12-2423:00 > Even the term used here "far right" is an euphemism for opinions not approved by governing European regimes.
Seriously. We know what far right is. It’s close to mainstream or mainstream in all EU countries. It is not suppressed anywhere, except for the nazi party in Germany. I mean, even AfD, which is as close as it gets, can still present candidates and campaign for them.
And we have plenty of experience of what happens when they come to power. You can stop clutching your pearls.
By jknoepfler 2025-12-2420:57 "Far right" isn't a euphemism for anything, it's exactly what it is. Countries that collapsed into actual fascism (e.g. Germany, Italy, Spain) within living memory, which then spent the subsequent century abutting the monstrosity of a totalitarian Communist regime ("far left") are indeed reluctant to air "far right" and "far left" views because they understand how they play out in practice: global war killing tens of millions, millions of civilians dead at the hands of their own state-sponsored militaries, a legacy of atrocity that will never wash clean, utter economic and cultural devastation echoing for decades... just an absolutely sickening inversion of the human spirit and what people want to believe in as citizens.
"Far right" views are far right views. They are morally repulsive in the extreme. We've witnessed the consequences before.
Somehow the modern right are the most opposed to government intervention these days, so I would expect them to be the majority in opposition to almost any proposed regulation or legislation, regardless of the contents.
By snowpid 2025-12-2421:26 EU commision has a centre right head. Germany has a centre right head. Italy has Meloni. Yet most people in these countries want more social media regulation.
