Elon Musk’s speech to far-right rally should have us all thinking about the power social media companies hold over our democracies Verena K Brandie reports
Musk demanded the “dissolution” of the British parliament
Elon Musk seems to enjoy awkward surprise appearances. Joining a far-right rally in London via livestream, he demanded the “dissolution” of the British parliament, falsely linked immigration to violence, and warned that the only option for protesters was to “fight back” or “die”.
He did similar in January 2025 when he joined a campaign event of the German far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Again over video he told supporters that “the German people are really an ancient nation” and the AfD is “the best hope for the future of Germany”.
It appears that the currently second-richest person in the world has become a mascot for the European far-right. In 2022, Musk bought one of the major social media platforms, then Twitter, to promote “free speech”. He stepped right into the ongoing “culture war” that is currently polarising US politics and finding traction across Europe. This makes him a problem for democratic politics.
The combination of massive wealth, far-right ideology and power over a large share of public discourse is a recurrent issue for democracy in general, but its negative effects have become even more prevalent in the age of social media. Two aspects are of particular importance here: social media companies’ monetising of user data and a dependence of democratic politics on platform discourse.
Social media has contributed to political polarisation during crucial political moments such as Brexit
Social media runs on an advertisement-based revenue model. Every click or lingering over a post produces data and metadata which are a lucrative resource. Social media companies make a lion’s share of their revenue from charging advertisers to show ads to specific users based on such data. Some of us might remember Mark Zuckerberg replying “Senator, we run ads” when asked during testimony before the US Senate in 2018 how he made money without charging users for his services.
Importantly, advertisers do not only come in the form of clothing brands, restaurant chains and protein shakes. Political parties, governments, think-tanks, and foundations have all paid for ads on social media.
Studies show that social media has contributed to political polarisation during crucial political moments such as Brexit. It also harms democratic discourse when it facilitates online abuse that excludes already minoritised groups from democratic debate. Too often, such abuse is directed at minority women and girls as well as LGBTQ+ people.
Meta has followed X’s turn towards a right-leaning interpretation of “free speech”. It has abolished its third party fact-checking programme, widely credited with helping to manage disinformation.
Meanwhile, politicians across Europe struggle to decide what to do about Musk’s destabilising comments. Keep in mind that governments are doing (or thinking about doing) business with big tech leaders. This situation is politically complex, to say the least, because Musk and others, while being outspoken about their annoyance with aspects of democracy, are also at the forefront of developing the AI technologies many nations are relying on in their hope for economic growth.
This means that Musk has cracked the code for success in capitalist democracies: he makes the headlines with extreme statements, allows debates to unfold “freely” on his platform, and makes some of his money from the generated data.
This situation has created a strange relationship between democratic politics and social media leaders. For people like Musk, there is almost an economic incentive to engage in politics, riling up people and pressuring governments. He is both a business leader and a political actor.
“Free speech” regulations on social media platforms and their leaders’ political stances are increasingly at odds with democratic guidelines. Democracies need to have a more focused debate about how to minimise this incentive structure for destabilising politics.
Author; Verena K Brande Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham
First Published on The Conversation
Sites linking to this page have chosen to adopt this Privacy Policy as their own. This means: they agree to abide by the principles laid out below.
In common with other websites, log files are stored on the web server saving details such as the visitor's IP address, browser type, referring page and time of visit.
Cookies may be used to remember visitor preferences when interacting with the website. Where registration is required, the visitor's email and a username will be stored on the server.
The information is used to enhance the visitor's experience when using the website to display personalised content and possibly advertising.
Email addresses will not be sold, rented or leased to 3rd parties. Email may be sent to inform you of news of our services or offers by us or our affiliates.
If you have subscribed to one of our services, you may unsubscribe by following the instructions which were included in the email that you received.
You can block cookies via your browser settings but this may prevent you from accessing certain features of the website.
Cookies are small digital signature files that are stored by your web browser that allow your preferences to be recorded when visiting the website. Cookies are used by most websites to record visitor preferences. Also they may be used to track your return visits to the website.
Like all sites, we use 3rd party tools to help us run the website. They are used not to track you but to track info like the visitors numbers on the site over a given period, to allow you to interact with the social-media widget and to allow us to login into this web based CMS (Content Management System).