Private messaging platforms represent one of the most important communication tools among users, while simultaneously emerging as a key medium in the dissemination of political propaganda and disinformation. They also often lack regulatory oversight because of (or in some cases thanks to) their private or encrypted features.
To address this critical dichotomy, the Forum on Information and Democracy launched, in March 2025, a workstream on Identifying solutions to ensure information integrity on private messaging platforms, under the leadership of the governments of Luxembourg and of Ukraine, and in collaboration with interested States of the International Partnership.
The first meeting was held on 27 March, 2025. It gathered representatives of signatory States of the Partnership as well as civil society experts and researchers to lay out key concepts, provide case studies and frame the issues for future consideration.
It built on previous work and recommendations made by the Forum, notably in its report on Infodemics and its Chapter 4 on the Transparency of Digital Platforms, published in November 2020.
Key Insights
The meeting provided key insights to establish an overview of the challenges raised by private messaging platforms and to advance policy reform on this topic.
Messaging platforms as mass media tools
Originally designed for personal communication, private messaging platforms are increasingly being used as tools for mass dissemination of information, by allowing the creation of large group chats and communities up to hundreds of thousands users. These platforms are constantly evolving, blurring the line between private communication and public broadcasting, therefore increasing the vulnerability of these platforms to propaganda and disinformation.
Political influence through trusted channels
The loss of trust in traditional media, in addition to the perceived intimacy and trust within private messaging services, make them particularly suited for spreading dis- or misinformation. Users receiving political or polarizing content in group chats might give it more credit due to the presence of friends, neighbors or family in the group, making the content more likely to shape their opinions through this implicit credibility.
The loophole of ‘private’ designation
Messaging platforms are not equally private. Privacy can refer to private communication safeguarded by end-to-end encryption for all features, or refers to the type of communication channel and their policies, notably moderation policies that apply. Telegram for example allows the creation of large scale chats while allowing users to call these chats ‘private’ in order to evade platform moderation.
Regulating features, not just platforms
Instead of applying a universal regulation to all platforms, regulators may need to look at specific factors and features that pose risks – such as the maximum audience size, the ease of gaining access to ‘private’ spaces or broadcast-style messaging. This targeted approach would better reflect the complexity of messaging services and take into consideration the nuanced nature of privacy on digital platforms.
Privacy as a sword and a shield
End-to-end encryption offers both human rights and political activists, and those behind disinformation campaigns, the ability to communicate and organize without fear that their messages will be surveilled by authorities. Any intervention must carefully balance the need to counter harmful behavior with the imperative to protect user privacy and uphold human rights.
What do we want to achieve?
Ensuring the safety of private messaging platforms while addressing misuse remains a key challenge. This workstream aims to develop solutions that strike a balance between combating disinformation and maintaining encryption safeguards.
Experts emphasized the need to respect and protect human rights, in accordance with international human rights law, in any regulation of private messaging platforms. They underlined the role of private messaging platforms during times of crisis and called for urgent policy solutions that mitigate threats posed by private messengers when used as mass-media platforms.
Participants agreed on the necessity to clarify what constitutes public and private spaces, to be determined according to particular features like the size of the public.
In the coming months, experts will further explore options for regulating private messaging platforms while taking care of maintaining a balance preserving both safety and freedom in the digital space.
Future discussions will identify policy solutions and build on suggestions made during this inaugural meeting, such as determining reasonable criteria to determine whether or not a messaging space is private. This would allow researchers to access content from these groups and regulators to request its removal when illegal content or activity is observed.
All interested parties, government representatives, civil society experts or researchers, are welcomed to join the workstream and take part in upcoming sessions.