User content moderation is one of the central concepts in the governance of cyberspace and plays a decisive role in regulating the relationship between online platforms, users, and public authorities. This study aims to identify and analyze the most significant legal challenges arising from current models of user content moderation and to examine their impact on users’ fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method based on documentary analysis, with data collected through the review of legal sources, platforms’ internal policies, and selected comparative legal systems.

The findings indicate that prevailing content moderation models—largely grounded in platform self-regulation or limited public intervention—face multiple challenges, including violations of privacy, a lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making, ambiguity in defining and determining permissible content, and difficulties in applying legal rules within a transnational digital environment. In practice, these challenges may lead to restrictions on freedom of expression, discriminatory decision-making, and reduced opportunities for effective user appeals. The study concludes that the absence of clear legal standards and robust accountability mechanisms risks transforming content moderation from a tool for safeguarding public interests into a potential threat to users’ rights. Accordingly, the research emphasizes the need to design a balanced regulatory framework for content moderation that, while addressing public order concerns, is grounded in the principles of transparency, proportionality, accountability, and the protection of users’ rights.