Regulating Social Media Responses to Online Harms: A comparative study between the European Union (EU) and Malaysia

Muhammad Muslim Rusli; Zalina Abdul Halim; Amirah Sabirah Mujahid

doi:10.21834/e-bpj.v10iSI33.7065

Authors

Muhammad Muslim Rusli PhD student, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Zalina Abdul Halim Senior Lecturer, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Amirah Sabirah Mujahid Senior Lecturer, MARA Professional College, Pahang, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v10iSI33.7065

Keywords:

Social Media Law, Digital Service Act (DSA), online harms, Malaysia Online Safety Bill (OSB)

Abstract

The pervasive dominance of online harms has prompted global reconsideration of digital policy and regulation. Thus, this paper compares the regulatory approaches of the EU and Malaysia in terms of their theoretical frameworks and systemic governance of online harms. This study applies comparative legal analysis and finds that while both regions initially are in favour of cyberspace sovereignty, the status quo has led to advanced regulatory responses. The EU emphasizes user protection and transparency through rights-based laws through DSA, whereas Malaysia prioritises public security via the OSB law. The findings highlight evolving state intervention in digital governance.

References

Article 19. (2024). Malaysia : Concerns with the Online Safety Bill. Article 19.

Bank, M., Duffy, F., Leyendecker, V., & Silva, M. (2021). The Lobby Network: Big Tech's Web of Influence in the EU. In Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl e.V.

Bueno, T. M., & Canaan, R. G. (2024). The Brussels Effect in Brazil: Analysing the impact of the EU digital services act on the discussion surrounding the fake news bill. Telecommunications Policy, 48(5), 102757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102757

Child, D., Hanna, J.-O., Hildreth, A., & Grant, J. I. (2023). Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms (Issue August). https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Typology_of_Online_Harms_2023.pdf

Cobbe, J. (2021). Algorithmic Censorship by Social Platforms: Power and Resistance. Philosophy and Technology, 34, 739–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0

Decarolis, F., & Li, M. (2023). Regulating online search in the EU: From the Android case to the digital markets act and digital services act. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 90,102983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2023.102983 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2023.102983

Diop, S., & Asongu, S. A. (2024). Information and Communication Technologies as Catalyst for the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals at the Local Level in Africa. Forum for Social Economics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2024.2387099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2024.2387099

Echikson, W., & Knodt, O. (2018). Germany’s NetzDG: A key test for combatting online hate. CEPS Research Report No. 2018/09.

Edward J. Eberle. (2011). The Methodology of Comparative Law. Roger Williams University Law Review, 16(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/18758444.1994.11788003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18758444.1994.11788003

Glenn, A. B. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. doi:10.3316/qrj0902027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Guggenberger, N. (2023). Moderating Monopolies. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 38, 119–171.

Hemphill, T. A., & Banerjee, S. (2021). Facebook and self-regulation: Efficacious proposals – Or ‘smoke-and-mirrors’? Technology in Society, 67,101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101797 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101797

Huddleston, J. (2022). Competition and Content Moderation: How Section 230 Enables Increased Tech Marketplace Entry. Cato Policy Analysis,922; 1-14.

Husa, J. (2024). Traditional Methods. In M. Siems & P. J. Yap (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law (pp. 15–31). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914741.004

Ibrahim, H., Debicki, M., Rahwan, T., & Zaki, Y. (2024). Big Tech Dominance Despite Global Mistrust. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 11(3), 3741–3752. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2023.3339183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2023.3339183

Johnson, A., & Castro, D. (2021). How Other Countries Have Dealt With Intermediary Liability. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, February, 1–14. https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/how-other-countries-have-dealt-intermediary-liability

Krotoszynski, R. J Jr. (2024). Disinformation, Misinformation, and Democracy: Defining the Problem, Identifying Potentially Effective Solutions, and the Merits of Using a Comparative Legal Approach. In R. J. Krotoszynski, A. Koltay, & C. Garden (Eds.), Disinformation, Misinformation and Democracy (pp. 1–34). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373272.002

Leerssen, P. (2023). An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation. Computer Law and Security Review, 48,105790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790

Mchangama, J., & Fiss, J. (2019). The Digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (Accidentally) created a prototype for global online censorship. Justitia.

Pohle, J. & T. T. (2020). Digital Sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.15211/SOVEUROPE220214049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532

Qureshi, A., & Patel, M. (2025). When Lies Outpace Truth : How Disinformation undermines AI during conflict events & national crises. Byesforall.Pk. https://www.bytesforall.pk/post/when-lies-outpace-truth-how-disinformation-undermines-ai-during-conflict-events-national-crises

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Casolari, F., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021). Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: An analysis of statements and policies. Internet Policy Review, 10(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575

Rudohradská, S., & Treščáková, D. (2021). Proposals for the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act: Broader Considerations in Context of Online Platforms. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenging Series (ECLIC), 5, 487–500. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/18317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/18317

Sagar, S., & Hoffmann, T. (2021). Intermediary Liability in the EU Digital Common Market – from the E-Commerce Directive to the Digital Services Act. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Politica, 34, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7238/IDP.V0I34.387691 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i34.387691

Samuel, G. (2014). An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method (Vol. 16, Issue 1). Hart Publishing.

Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern our Digital Lives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108666428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108666428

TikTok Lite Rewards Programme. (2024).