Germany's platform rules are being rewritten twice over. The first rewrite is finished: the Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG) entered into force on 14 May 2024 and plugged German law into the EU Digital Services Act, which is why the NetzDG's takedown regime is now history. The second rewrite is a consultation draft. It would reach past takedowns into how feeds are ordered.
What the draft is, and what it is not
On 16 September 2026 the Rundfunkkommission der Länder, the body of state media officials, put proposals titled "Digitale Medien-Staatsvertrag Teil 2" out for discussion. Comments are open until 13 November 2026. The discussion draft PDF runs to 186 pages and carries a file date of 28 September.
Its cover note is blunt. The text reflects the "current state of deliberations", and "even outside square brackets" it is not a final, agreed text. Anyone describing it as the law Germany is adopting is overstating it.
The draft's own summary lists seven goals. Goal two is to "strengthen visibility and protect media from algorithmic displacement." The synopsis promises to improve the findability of individual pieces of content in algorithmic recommendation systems. The "Public-Value" concept is renamed "Angebote mit vielfaltsförderndem Mehraufwand", offerings with diversity-promoting extra effort.
One detail circulating in the German press needs a caveat. Tichys Einblick, an opinion outlet, reports that the draft would oblige social networks to make at least every fifth displayed item "vielfaltsfördernd". That is the one-in-five figure behind the public debate. The official consultation page does not mention a quota. I could not confirm the figure or its bracketed status in the portions of the draft I read. A second report, from Jörg Schieb, describes a different mechanism: media that fund a newsroom could be listed by the state media authorities as diversity-promoting. Treat the quota as reported, not verified, until someone reads the operative section.
The strongest case for the Länder
The case for intervening is serious. Recommendation systems now decide what most people see, and a ranking tuned for engagement can bury reported news under outrage and entertainment. German media law has always treated access to diverse information as a constitutional interest, and the Länder hold the cultural competence for it. A rule that stops platforms from demoting accountable journalism is arguably a modest version of that tradition. The draft also pairs visibility with a refinancing agenda, so publishers share in value that platforms capture.
If the measure were only an anti-discrimination rule, with no demotion of recognised journalism without notice and a right to explanation, I would have few objections.
Why a quota or preferred-status regime is the wrong tool
The problem begins when visibility becomes an entitlement for a state-defined class of providers. Three objections follow.
It puts a regulator in the editorial seat. Deciding which providers count as having "diversity-promoting extra effort" means state media authorities ranking speakers by perceived merit. Even with good-faith criteria, that is a government judgment about whose speech deserves a thumb on the scale. The European tradition rightly distrusts that power, and the draft's own consultation format admits the criteria are unsettled.
It cannot be measured. A fixed share of feed slots assumes platforms can identify qualifying items per user and that users want them. Feeds are personalised. A mandate that pushes content a user has repeatedly skipped lowers the product's usefulness for that person and raises compliance cost for smaller services. It would also entrench large publishers that already have the best chance of being listed.
It sits awkwardly with EU law. The DSA harmonised systemic-risk and recommender-system duties across the single market. The DDG designates the Bundesnetzagentur as the competent authority and sets up a coordination body for digital services in Bonn. A parallel Länder regime with its own feed-ordering duties invites exactly the fragmentation the DSA was meant to end. Part 1 of the treaty went through EU notification. Part 2's feed rules would need the same scrutiny.
What would be better
The EFF's recent argument about moderation around elections applies by analogy. It urges lawmakers not to mandate automated decisions, and to prefer transparency, human review, appeals and audits over prescriptive outcomes. The same logic suggests the Länder should regulate process rather than results:
- Require notice and a statement of reasons when recognised journalistic content is demoted, which the DSA's framework already points toward.
- Mandate user-controlled feed choices, including a chronological or publisher-followed option, so diversity is something users select.
- Publish the listing criteria, an appeal route and independent audits before any preferred status takes effect.
- Leave quantitative slot quotas out unless evidence shows that process rules failed.
What to watch
Statements are due on 13 November, and the Länder have said responses will be evaluated and, where consent is given, published. The draft's route from here is a political decision by the state premiers and then 16 state parliaments, so nothing is imminent. The test is whether the final text keeps platform duties procedural or turns them into outcome targets. The NetzDG's lesson was that fixed deadlines and fines pushed platforms toward over-removal. Feed quotas risk the same error in the other direction: a mandate that optimises for a number rather than for readers.