While Belgium and France are, at the time of writing, still in the process of forming their governments – an undertaking complicated by the desire to exclude far-right parties that have gained ground at the ballot box – some of their neighbours have already taken the step into self-government and incorporated far-right formations into their executives.

“Finland, Italy and Slovakia are joined by two other EU countries whose governments are extremist parties that were outlawed until recently,” notes Petr Jedlicka In Deník referendumIn Croatia, “this is the third consecutive government led by the traditional nationalist but pro-Western right-wing party HDZ,” with the Patriotic Movement (MP, far-right) entering the government for the first time.”

In the Netherlands, it took no less than 223 days for the government under former intelligence chief Dick Schoofs to come into office on July 2. Although he does not belong to any political party, he leads the most right-wing government in the country’s recent history, notes PoliticoThe first days of Schoofs’ government were marked by tensions between the coalition parties, writes Dieuwertje Kuipers In Welcome! not least because of the taunts and criticisms Geert Wilders made towards his partners and their discomfort with his more outrageous statements. Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) emerged victorious in the 2023 parliamentary elections.

Wilders is taking advantage of the freedoms afforded by his “simple” mandate as an MP and creating the unpleasant impression of constantly keeping an eye on Schoofs and his audience on X (formerly Twitter) and of wanting to impose his views on the entire coalition. No wonder, Kuipers notes, that “many voters expect a premature fall of the government due to differences of opinion”.

It is probably no coincidence that Wilders chose the most controversial social network to provoke the government: since it was taken over by the American-South African magnate Elon Musk two years ago, the first truly global agora has turned into an arena where hate speech, conspiracy theories and far-right bots circulate. “X was once touted as a ‘global town square’ where journalists, politicians and interested citizens could gather for public debate. But given the number of journalists, academics and left-leaning users who have left it, it seems unlikely that it will ever be that way again,” laments Katherine M. FitzGerald In The conversation.

In the name of unfettered freedom of expression, the owner of Tesla and SpaceX has actually reinstated or promoted personalities banned by previous management and has no qualms about violating the platform’s rules of use by spreading false information and deepfakes – videos created by artificial intelligence featuring real personalities. When the richest man in the world appropriates the world’s biggest digital megaphone, the consequences may not be limited to freedom of expression.

We saw this again this summer, when anti-immigrant riots broke out in several British cities after rumours circulated that the man who stabbed three children to death in a dance class in Southport, north-west England, was a Muslim asylum seeker (the alleged perpetrator is a British national whose parents are of Rwandan descent). The riots were amplified by radical right-wing ‘influencers’ such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known as Tommy Robinson) and Andrew Tate.

The ban on both men was lifted by Musk, who himself added fuel to the fire by expertly claiming that “a civil war in Britain was inevitable”. This led Alan Rusbridge Musk as an “arsonist with a giant matchbox” in the British daily The Independent. In his own magazine Outlook The editor discusses “the way Twitter/X is run – or not run” and “the way the platform is used to incite hatred, if not violence; and – perhaps more importantly – to undermine any sense that some things can be provably true and others not.” Rusbridger cites the essay by American writer Jonathan Rauch The Constitution of Knowledge (Brookings Institution Press, 2021), in which Rauch lists “the four fields whose efforts enable us – most of us – to live in a reality-based community: science and academia, journalism, law, and government.”

But Rusbridger notes: “To escape this reality, you start by attacking scientists, lawyers, journalists, and the ‘swamp’ or ‘blob’ of government. And then you go further. (…) It took centuries of conscious work to build the constitution of knowledge that, as Rauch puts it, ‘saves us from ourselves.’ Unbridled social media is doing the opposite, leading to a world in which, as numerous polls show, we increasingly do not know who or what to believe.”

“This summer we experienced something new and unprecedented,” notes Carole Cadwallader In The Guardian: “The billionaire and owner of a tech platform publicly confronts an elected politician and uses his platform to undermine his authority and incite violence. The British summer riots of 2024 were Elon Musk’s test balloon” for the US presidential election in November. “He got away scot-free,” adds the expert on right-wing extremism and social networks. “And if you are not afraid of the extraordinary supranational power of this development or the possible consequences, you should be.”

This is all the more true as these platforms seem increasingly free of rules and safeguards while continuing to tout self-regulation: “Twitter, now X, has laid off at least half of its trust and safety team. But so has every tech company we know. Thousands of employees previously dedicated to tracking down misinformation have been laid off by Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Discord. Just last week, Facebook shut down one of its last remaining transparency tools, CrowdTangle.”

Last month, the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Bretonsent a letter to Elon Musk reminding him that as head of X, he had a legal obligation under European law to prevent “the dissemination of harmful content.” The richest man in the world responded with a meme whose tone illustrates his concept of freedom of expression and his vision of the global agora. How encouraging.

While X appears to serve the interests of the far right, Telegram appears to be more politically neutral but no less toxic. The co-founder, who was recently arrested in Paris Pavel Durov has, as far as we know, always refused to intervene in the promotion or blocking of accounts hosted on its messaging service. Although Telegram offers an alternative to the Internet in countries where press freedom is under attack by the authorities – starting with Russia – it is just as popular with all sorts of pro-Kremlin agents.

“The sudden mix of users, including two armies at war, reflects exactly Durov’s idea of ​​freedom of expression,” notes Andrei Soldatov And Irina Borogan In CEPA: “Everyone can have a say in social media, and there should be no control by any government. (…) His quasi-anarchic attitude is reminiscent of the ideology of the early hacker movement of the 1980s, but is not a viable strategy today, when governments around the world are going on the offensive against free access on the Internet.”

“Is state coercion the only way to enforce the rules?” ask Soldatov and Borogan, and provide the first steps towards an answer: “Social media is an essential part of our social fabric and our society, through non-governmental organizations, parliaments and parliamentary hearings, is perfectly capable of creating control mechanisms that do not involve arresting CEOs for lack of moderation.”

In partnership with Display Europe, co-funded by the European Union. However, the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for these views.