Monitoring and Reporting Exercise 2023/2024 /1st evaluation round

Does the Internet really respond to hate?
A study on the removal of illegal content 2023/2024

Contemporary hate is increasingly less confined to offline spaces—its primary arena has become social media, online platforms, and digital communication ecosystems. It is there that antisemitic, xenophobic, and disinformation content spreads, affecting users’ safety and the quality of public debate. This publication was created to examine how the system responds to this phenomenon.
Prepared by the Jewish Czulent Association, it is based on a six-month online study in which—using digital tools—we tested how internet platforms actually operate in practice. This material is intended for policymakers, institutions, organizations, and anyone who wants to understand whether online content reporting mechanisms truly work—and how they can be improved.

This study takes place in a world that is changing faster than regulations.

Social media have become one of the main spaces where opinions are shaped, but also environments in which hate can spread rapidly. Antisemitism—like other forms of prejudice—now takes on new forms: memes, comments, coded language, or conspiracy theories. As the report shows, the Internet is currently the primary space where such content appears.

Instead of analyzing platform declarations, we examined their practice. As part of the MRE (Monitoring and Reporting Exercise) study, we monitored, identified, and reported illegal content to major global platforms—such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and X—as well as to Polish online services. The entire process was conducted online and made use of real reporting mechanisms available to users, as well as channels dedicated to so-called trusted flaggers.

This approach made it possible to see more than just statistics. The study showed how algorithms operate, how long platforms take to respond, and whether user reports have a real impact. In total, 192 reports were submitted—both through standard tools and via escalation procedures. The results clearly show that the method of reporting matters—content reported by expert entities was removed more often than content reported by regular users.

At the same time, nearly half of the illegal content was not removed—even though it violated both the law and the platforms’ terms of service.

The report comes at a time of significant regulatory change. The study was conducted during the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA)—an EU regulation aimed at increasing the accountability of platforms for content published online. We show how these provisions function in practice—and where gaps still exist that require clarification or effective enforcement.

This is not just a report about technology—it is a report about safety.

The content analyzed in the study was not random—all of it met the criteria of illegal hate speech, often based on antisemitism, but also including other forms of prejudice, such as anti-Ukrainian content and disinformation. The Internet is no longer just a space for communication—it is an environment that has a real impact on the sense of safety of entire communities.

At Czulent, we use new technologies to better understand these phenomena—and to respond to them more effectively.

We combine internet monitoring, data analysis, and expert knowledge to identify trends and translate them into concrete recommendations. Our work shows that countering hate online requires not only regulation, but also the active involvement of civil society organizations and the development of technology-based tools.

This publication is part of that approach. It shows that combating hate online is one of the key challenges of our time—and that without combining knowledge, technology, and systemic cooperation, it will not be effective.

This publication was created as part of the project Securing Our Community, Protecting Our Democracy: Combating Antisemitism through an Integrated Approach to Advocacy and Security (PROTEUS Project), co-financed by the European Union.

The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting body are responsible for them.

The project was also co-financed by the Foundation for Memory, Responsibility, and Future (EVZ). This publication does not reflect the position or views of the Foundation for Memory, Responsibility, and Future (EVZ).