European researchers want to study social media’s harms but can’t get the data
Iamnitchi is one of several misinformation researchers who told WIRED that, despite being legally entitled to obtain platform data under EU law, they face obstacles, obfuscation, and, in some cases, court battles to obtain it. Last year the law was broadened to increase researcher access, but it’s the implementation not the scope of the law itself that researchers say is the issue.
In recent years, social media companies shut down public access tools like Meta’s CrowdTangle and replaced them with content libraries, or, like X, paywalled their API data, forcing academics to pay “hundreds of dollars a month,” said Duncan Allen, a research officer at Democracy Reporting International (DRI) in Germany. Researchers say that without API access, what Iamnitchi describes as the “black holes” in what society knows about how these platforms recommend content or handle reports regarding sensitive content will only grow.
Others, like TikTok, cap how many posts any researcher account can pull each day, which Allen said can make it “impossible to study anything at scale.”
The DSA was meant to solve this by allowing vetted researchers at credible institutions to have access to API data if they could show it would help in studying systemic risks, from illegal content to threats to fundamental rights. But two years after the law took effect, researchers say they struggle to meet its security requirements and face narrow interpretations from platforms of what qualifies as a systemic risk.
Application forms differ by platform, but most require data to be stored on infrastructure that cannot be compromised—such as a machine physically disconnected from the internet—a resource most universities lack, Iamnitchi said.
Even for researchers who secure approval, “there’s no guarantee that the data is good,” said L. K. Seiling, coordinator of the DSA40 Collaboratory, a German initiative that tracks 46 DSA applications. API data is often difficult for a colleague to reproduce, so a researcher’s work cannot be checked for errors, which Iamnitchi said is a “basic requirement of science.”
DSA40 data shows that of 46 tracked applications, 20 were approved and 14 rejected. But approval rates vary widely: TikTok approved 11 of 13 applications, while X rejected 11 of 23. The true rejection rate is likely higher because the tracker relies on voluntary reporting, Seiling said.
“There’s no structured advantage for researchers to use this pathway,” Seiling said. “Data access as it’s set up right now tries to disincentivize researchers.”
A TikTok spokesperson told WIRED the company has given more than 1,500 research teams access to its tools, approved 130 applications in the EU in the second half of last year, and that its daily quota of 1,000 API requests lets researchers pull up to 100,000 video and comment records a day, or up to 2 million follower records. TikTok said it considers its research tools compliant with the DSA but “would welcome further public guidance.”
A Meta spokesperson said CrowdTangle covered only a fraction of the company’s public data, while the Meta Content Library and API that replaced it are “the most comprehensive research tools to date.” They cover Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp Channels, and Threads with “robust privacy protections,” and qualified nonprofit researchers, including journalists, can apply.
