Iamnitchi is one of several disinformation researchers who told WIRED that despite having the legal right to obtain data from platforms under EU law, they face obstacles, obfuscation and, in some cases, court battles to obtain it. Last year, the law was expanded to increase access for researchers, but it is the implementation, not the scope of the law itself, that researchers say is the problem.

In recent years, social media companies have shut down publicly accessible tools like Meta’s CrowdTangle and replaced them with content libraries or, like 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 reporting on sensitive content will only grow.

Others, like TikTok, limit the number of posts any researcher account can make each day, which Allen says can make it “impossible to study anything at scale.”

The DSA was intended to resolve this by allowing vetted researchers from credible institutions access to API data if they could demonstrate that it would help study systemic risks, from illegal content to threats to fundamental rights. But two years after the law went into effect, researchers say they are struggling to meet its security requirements and face narrow interpretations by platforms of what is considered 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 get approval, “there is no guarantee that the data is good,” said LK 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 applications tracked, 20 were approved and 14 were 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 is no structured advantage for researchers to use this route,” Seiling said. “Access to data, as currently configured, attempts to disincentivize researchers.”

A TikTok spokesperson told WIRED that the company has given access to its tools to more than 1,500 research teams, approved 130 apps in the EU in the second half of last year, and that its daily quota of 1,000 API requests allows researchers to obtain up to 100,000 video and comment records per day, or up to 2 million follower records. TikTok said it considers its research tools to be compliant with the DSA, but would “welcome more 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 “strong privacy protections,” and qualified researchers from nonprofit organizations, including journalists, can apply.