BRUSSELS, Nov. 3, 2025 — The European Commission is preparing a proposal that could reshape how platforms such as Meta, Google, and TikTok contribute to European security. A draft document reviewed by Reuters outlines a crisis protocol under the Digital Services Act that extends beyond illegal content removal. The plan would enlist platforms in detecting coordinated assaults on elections, supply chains, and public discourse.

The proposal marks a turning point. Platforms are no longer seen as neutral channels but as parts of democratic infrastructure. Brussels argues that hybrid threats, combinations of cyberattacks, disinformation, and economic coercion, erode trust gradually rather than through sudden shocks. Under the new approach, platforms would need to flag, share, and escalate threats with authorities under one coordinated EU system.

What Role Will Tech Companies Play?

The framework assigns new responsibilities to companies governed by the DSA. Their role would move from removing harmful content to assessing risks tied to AI-generated media, deepfakes, and election interference. They would also take part in coordinated crisis responses with European regulators.

In practice, that means data sharing, joint analysis, and participation in early-warning systems. Platforms would become operational partners in digital defence, blurring lines between technology and policy. Officials believe this partnership is essential as platforms often detect threats faster than governments can.

How Will the Rules Be Enforced?

Failure to comply could bring severe costs. Under existing DSA rules, large platforms already face fines worth billions for breaching content obligations. The proposed protocol could add a new layer linked directly to national security.

Legal and Financial Pressure: The European Commission may push for binding obligations rather than voluntary guidelines. Industry leaders expect negotiations to focus on enforcement thresholds and transparency in how platforms detect and report hybrid threats.

Operational Challenges Ahead: Platforms will also need to manage tensions between compliance and privacy. Sharing data with state agencies could expose companies to criticism or lawsuits over surveillance and user rights. National governments, under public pressure to deliver quick results before the next European elections, may test how far enforcement can go.

Power Shift Between Brussels and Big Tech

This new framework is also about control. For years, platforms shaped online speech with little government interference. Now, Brussels is reclaiming authority, arguing that security cannot depend on private companies alone. The Commission’s move signals a deeper shift in power from corporate policy teams to elected institutions.

Tech companies are preparing to push back. They argue that vague definitions of hybrid threats could allow governments to expand surveillance and demand real-time data access. Behind the debate lies a question about sovereignty, not just over data but over the structure of public information itself.

Global Ripples of Europe’s Experiment

Governments across the world are watching closely. If Brussels succeeds, similar frameworks may spread to other democracies struggling with manipulation and cyber interference. The effort signals that technology regulation has moved from consumer safety to security policy.

Yet critics warn that the approach risks overreach. Turning private platforms into instruments of state defence may blur accountability and widen the debate over free expression and data control. For Brussels, though, the calculation is clear. Hybrid threats are no longer abstract dangers; they are part of everyday governance, and Europe intends to respond with unity and precision.

 

Inputs from Diana Chou

Editing by David Ryder