Platform Governance, Freedom of Expression, and Digital Sovereignty: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the United States and the European Union

Abstract

This article examines how platform governance and digital sovereignty frameworks reshape freedom of expression, regulatory legitimacy, institutional accountability, and democratic governance in the United States and the European Union. The study argues that digital platforms increasingly function as quasi-governance institutions because algorithmic content moderation systems, transnational information infrastructures, and platform-based communication networks influence public discourse, political participation, economic coordination, and democratic legitimacy. Using comparative legal and socio-institutional analysis, the article investigates how the United States’ market-oriented and speech-protective regulatory framework and the European Union’s rights-oriented and sovereignty-based digital governance system generate divergent approaches to platform accountability, content moderation, algorithmic transparency, and democratic oversight. Drawing on constitutional jurisprudence, Digital Services Act regulatory materials, Section 230 legal frameworks, OECD digital governance indicators, United Nations reports, and comparative legal scholarship, the findings demonstrate that effective platform governance depends on regulatory coherence, institutional adaptability, procedural accountability, and democratic legitimacy. The comparison reveals that the United States prioritizes innovation flexibility and broad expressive protection, whereas the European Union emphasizes digital sovereignty, procedural transparency, and platform accountability. The article contributes to legal scholarship by proposing a conceptual framework linking platform governance, institutional legitimacy, digital sovereignty, democratic accountability, and sustainable socio-political development. The findings further indicate that digital platform regulation may strengthen democratic resilience and information accountability while simultaneously generating tensions concerning censorship risks, regulatory fragmentation, market concentration, and transnational governance asymmetry when institutional safeguards remain insufficient.