Report March 2025
Demagog is the first Polish fact-checking organization, established in 2014. Our mission is to combat disinformation and improve the quality of public debate by providing access to unbiased and credible information. For more than 10 years we’ve been fact-checking political claims, keeping track of the promises and debunking harmful disinformation. We strive to build a strong misinformation-resilient civil society that keeps politicians accountable for what they say and promise. We believe that we can achieve this goal by empowering citizens with critical fact-checking and media literacy skills. That’s why we share our expertise with others in our educational project called Fact-checking Academy. We are signatories to the 2022 European Code of Practice on Disinformation and the Polish Code of Good Practices in Combating Disinformation. We are members of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) and the Central European Digital Media Observatory Hub (CEDMO). We are partners to Meta's Third Party Fact-checking Program and TikTok's Fact-checking Program.
Empowering fact-checkers
Commitment 33
Relevant Signatories (i.e. fact-checking organisations) commit to operate on the basis of strict ethical and transparency rules, and to protect their independence.
We signed up to the following measures of this commitment
Measure 33.1
In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?
If yes, list these implementation measures here
Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?
If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?
Measure 33.1
Relevant Signatories will comply with the requirements of instruments such as being verified signatories of the International Fact-checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles or the future Code of Professional Integrity for Independent European fact-checking organisations.
QRE 33.1.1
Relevant Signatories will report on the status of their membership to instruments such as those mentioned in Measure 33.1 and the actions taken as a result of that to ensure strict ethical and transparency rules, and to protect their independence.
As of March 2025, in the IFCN there are 68 verified active signatories and 10 organizations under renewal process which come from EU member states, Council of Europe states and Kosovo.
The European Code of Standards for Independent Fact- Checking Organisations is a set of criteria designed to ensure that organisations fact-checking mis and disinformation adhere to the highest standards of methodology, ethics and transparency in order to best serve the public interest.
SLI 33.1.1
Relevant Signatories will report on the number of European fact-checkers that are IFCN-certified or are members of the future Code of Professional Integrity.
- Nr of fact-checkers IFCN-certified: 68 signatories, 10 organizations under renewal, 9 organizations with certification expired
- Nr of fact-checkers EFCSN- certified: 60 verified members, 4 organizations under review
Permanent Task-Force
Commitment 37
Signatories commit to participate in the permanent Task-force. The Task-force includes the Signatories of the Code and representatives from EDMO and ERGA. It is chaired by the European Commission, and includes representatives of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The Task-force can also invite relevant experts as observers to support its work. Decisions of the Task-force are made by consensus.
We signed up to the following measures of this commitment
Measure 37.1 Measure 37.2 Measure 37.3 Measure 37.4 Measure 37.5 Measure 37.6
In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?
If yes, list these implementation measures here
Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?
If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?
Measure 37.1
Signatories will participate in the Task-force and contribute to its work. Signatories, in particular smaller or emerging services will contribute to the work of the Task-force proportionate to their resources, size and risk profile. Smaller or emerging services can also agree to pool their resources together and represent each other in the Task-force. The Task-force will meet in plenary sessions as necessary and at least every 6 months, and, where relevant, in subgroups dedicated to specific issues or workstreams.
Measure 37.2
Signatories agree to work in the Task-force in particular – but not limited to – on the following tasks: Establishing a risk assessment methodology and a rapid response system to be used in special situations like elections or crises; Cooperate and coordinate their work in special situations like elections or crisis; Agree on the harmonised reporting templates for the implementation of the Code's Commitments and Measures, the refined methodology of the reporting, and the relevant data disclosure for monitoring purposes; Review the quality and effectiveness of the harmonised reporting templates, as well as the formats and methods of data disclosure for monitoring purposes, throughout future monitoring cycles and adapt them, as needed; Contribute to the assessment of the quality and effectiveness of Service Level and Structural Indicators and the data points provided to measure these indicators, as well as their relevant adaptation; Refine, test and adjust Structural Indicators and design mechanisms to measure them at Member State level; Agree, publish and update a list of TTPs employed by malicious actors, and set down baseline elements, objectives and benchmarks for Measures to counter them, in line with the Chapter IV of this Code.
Measure 37.3
The Task-force will agree on and define its operating rules, including on the involvement of third-party experts, which will be laid down in a Vademecum drafted by the European Commission in collaboration with the Signatories and agreed on by consensus between the members of the Task-force.
Measure 37.4
Signatories agree to set up subgroups dedicated to the specific issues related to the implementation and revision of the Code with the participation of the relevant Signatories.
Measure 37.5
When needed, and in any event at least once per year the Task-force organises meetings with relevant stakeholder groups and experts to inform them about the operation of the Code and gather their views related to important developments in the field of Disinformation.
Measure 37.6
Signatories agree to notify the rest of the Task-force when a Commitment or Measure would benefit from changes over time as their practices and approaches evolve, in view of technological, societal, market, and legislative developments. Having discussed the changes required, the Relevant Signatories will update their subscription document accordingly and report on the changes in their next report.
QRE 37.6.1
Signatories will describe how they engage in the work of the Task-force in the reporting period, including the sub-groups they engaged with.
Monitoring of the Code
Commitment 38
The Signatories commit to dedicate adequate financial and human resources and put in place appropriate internal processes to ensure the implementation of their commitments under the Code.
We signed up to the following measures of this commitment
Measure 38.1
In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?
If yes, list these implementation measures here
Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?
If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?
Measure 38.1
Relevant Signatories will outline the teams and internal processes they have in place, per service, to comply with the Code in order to achieve full coverage across the Member States and the languages of the EU.
QRE 38.1.1
Relevant Signatories will outline the teams and internal processes they have in place, per service, to comply with the Code in order to achieve full coverage across the Member States and the languages of the EU.
Commitment 39
Signatories commit to provide to the European Commission, within 1 month after the end of the implementation period (6 months after this Code’s signature) the baseline reports as set out in the Preamble.
We signed up to the following measures of this commitment
In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?
If yes, list these implementation measures here
Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?
If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?
Commitment 40
Signatories commit to provide regular reporting on Service Level Indicators (SLIs) and Qualitative Reporting Elements (QREs). The reports and data provided should allow for a thorough assessment of the extent of the implementation of the Code’s Commitments and Measures by each Signatory, service and at Member State level.
We signed up to the following measures of this commitment
Measure 40.1 Measure 40.2 Measure 40.3 Measure 40.4 Measure 40.5 Measure 40.6
In line with this commitment, did you deploy new implementation measures (e.g. changes to your terms of service, new tools, new policies, etc)?
If yes, list these implementation measures here
Do you plan to put further implementation measures in place in the next 6 months to substantially improve the maturity of the implementation of this commitment?
If yes, which further implementation measures do you plan to put in place in the next 6 months?
Measure 40.1
Relevant Signatories that are Very Large Online Platforms, as defined in the DSA, will report every six-months on the implementation of the Commitments and Measures they signed up to under the Code, including on the relevant QREs and SLIs at service and Member State Level.
Measure 40.2
Other Signatories will report yearly on the implementation of the Commitments and Measures taken under the present Code, including on the relevant QREs and SLIs, at service and Member State level.
Measure 40.3
Measure 40.4
Measure 40.5
Measure 40.6
Crisis and Elections Response
Elections 2024
[Note: Signatories are requested to provide information relevant to their particular response to the threats and challenges they observed on their service(s). They ensure that the information below provides an accurate and complete report of their relevant actions. As operational responses to crisis/election situations can vary from service to service, an absence of information should not be considered a priori a shortfall in the way a particular service has responded. Impact metrics are accurate to the best of signatories’ abilities to measure them].
Threats observed or anticipated
- EPBD: Disinformation narratives regarding the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive were present in the public debate on a large scale. Claims that Poles would be expropriated from their homes due to the enforcement of the measures in the Directive were propagated mainly by right-wing politicians.
- Migration Pact: With the approval of the new Migration and Asylum Pact, discussion regarding the potential legal consequences of this document quickly erupted. Right-wing politicians from parties like Konfederacja or Suwerenna Polska claimed that Poland would be forced to accept migrants or pay 20,000 EUR, without providing additional context regarding other measures and policies within the legal framework. It was also claimed that these new migration policies were the result of countries like Spain, Italy, Germany, and France wanting to ship or "export" their own problems to more stable countries like Poland.
- Green Deal: Narratives regarding issues like food imports from outside the EU were spread concerning the EU Green Deal. Politicians claimed that the EU Green Deal would lead to the destruction not only of domestic agriculture and food production in Poland, but also in the EU overall. In more radical cases, it aligned with climate change denial. We assess that the majority of EU-related disinformation during the European election campaign period originated domestically and was disseminated for the political purposes of specific candidates and parties.
Mitigations in place
In order to overcome the challenges related with the limited scope and reach of our activities, we have partnered with the Google News Initiative to organize two fact-checking hackathons for journalists, activists and concerned citizens. The concept was to promote the idea of factchecking, share our expertise and know-how and also increase the reach of our work.
Empowering the Fact-Checking Community
Outline approaches pertinent to this chapter, highlighting similarities/commonalities and differences with regular enforcement.