The Digital Services Act (DSA) implements a legal framework for digital services, including social media platforms, to ensure that they operate in responsible, accountable ways. With an objective involving three critical theoretical pillars—transparency, accountability, and responsibility—the DSA, among other functions, (mostly) holds online platforms liable for content that they publish and also imposes requirements that they mitigate and remove harmful content. However, from a critical standpoint, the DSA begs some pivotal questions. For one, how can such a legal document, even if binding, mitigate the severe societal, psychological, emotional, and even physical dangers and detriments experienced by victims of social media abuse? For another, how can a supranational regulation combat local disinformation campaigns and political propaganda? In this article, we encourage not only introducing, analyzing, and critically examining the DSA but also propose policy recommendations to ameliorate content moderation on social media platforms.

The present chapter revisits the concept of the chilling effect, a phenomenon traditionally described as a case where individuals refrain from exercising their rights (particularly freedom of expression) due to perceived risks of legal or institutional repercussions. Although the term originated in U.S. constitutional law, its meaning has expanded across legal systems and disciplines, and it remains conceptually ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The chapter critically examines whether the chilling effect functions primarily as a legal doctrine, a psychological response, or a rhetorical tool—or perhaps all of these combined. The article highlights the tension between legal reasoning, which demands concrete harm and causality, and the anticipatory, often subjective nature of chilling effects. The chapter’s key findings underline that chilling effects rarely result from direct enforcement alone. Rather, they are shaped by overlapping pressures, for instance, legal ambiguity, institutional norms, cultural context, and internalised perceptions of risk. Therefore, we claim that the chilling effect is best understood as a systemic, multidimensional dynamic rather than a discrete legal problem since its impact varies across actors, contexts, and regulatory environments (often affecting marginalised communities more severely). The chapter argues for moving beyond narrow legal definitions toward an interdisciplinary, empirically informed approach that accounts for the symbolic, social, and psychological dimensions through which chilling effects are produced and maintained.