Elon Musk’s recent interest in disrupting EU and UK politics may seem a bit mysterious. But as Damian Tambini argues, the reason behind this is the same reason Musk allied himself with Donald Trump: blatant economic rather than deep-seated ideological affinities. It’s profit.
Enjoying this post? Then sign up for our newsletter to receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
Why on earth did British, German and European politics suddenly become so important to the world’s richest man? Elon may be obsessed with worries about immigration, “wokeness,” and the virtues of “Western civilization.” These topics have become increasingly prominent in his tweets. But personal economic interests explain why Mr Musk seems determined to weaken the EU and destabilize Germany in order to weaken the UK government.
In a move familiar to some newspaper historians, Elon Musk bought Twitter, a loss-making communications company, and turned it into a propaganda tool. He continued to trade the propaganda power of this new megaphone with political entrepreneurs, especially the president-elect, in exchange for returns on other investments. These investments in space, low-orbit satellites, and AI rely on state sponsorship and regulation, requiring closeness with political power, which is facilitated by propaganda power.
Considering that vicious cycle, it becomes clear why Elon Musk needs to disrupt the EU. If Foundation X is compromised, the entire House on the Sand can collapse. This is precisely the threat posed by the new paradigm of EU and UK regulation. Mr. Musk is doing everything he can to weaken EU regulations, and this is perhaps a sign that it is likely to be effective. Last Friday, the European Commission issued a retention order requiring X to preserve and share internal documents regarding its recommendation system and recent changes made to it. The European Commission is using its powers under the Digital Services Act to ensure that social media does not create systemic risks for Europe, including risks to democracy. Installing leaders in Europe who align with his and Trump’s worldview is fundamental to his business.
Installing leaders in Europe who align with his and Trump’s worldview is fundamental to his business.
This isn’t just about trying to destroy social media regulation. Mr. Musk has a valuable first-mover advantage in the satellite business, but if he secures that advantage and fails to strike a deal with a competitor, his business will become increasingly exposed to competition. Installing leaders in Europe who align with his and Trump’s worldview is fundamental to his business.
How new regulations threaten the X in masks
The US entrepreneur’s insane political intervention and his “heroic” stand on free speech seem more reasonable when we examine the current state of regulation in the EU and UK. Musk is waging an all-out campaign to undermine EU regulations by undermining the EU’s political balance and calling into question the very definition of free speech.
The uncomfortable fact is that cooperating with fact checkers (which Mr. Musk has refused to do and is now asking Meta to campaign against) is what platforms will have to do under the new EU regime. In 2023, the EU Parliament passed the Digital Services Act. Under the law, which is being phased in this year, search and social media providers will have a number of new obligations to clean up their platforms and mitigate harm. Across the EU, the largest platforms will be required to carry out detailed risk assessments. For example, we need to maintain effective complaint systems and work with third parties, such as well-known fact-checkers, to reduce not only harm to children, but also so-called “systemic harm.” ‘Risk’ also includes the risk of disinformation.
Elon Musk’s communications platform is currently strongly resisting regulation under the Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act.
The UK, like many other countries outside the EU, has introduced a similar framework under its Online Safety Act. Part of the reason is that the prevailing approach to regulation is strongly influenced by the work of British regulation scholars such as Will Perrin and Lorna Woods.
Elon Musk’s communications platform is currently strongly resisting regulation under the Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act. X has been required by the European Union to submit a risk assessment and has publicly criticized its legally mandated fact-checking and content moderation framework.
Mark Zuckerberg described the requirements of the Digital Services Act as a form of EU tariffs on US companies operating in the economy. EU policymakers will, of course, be unable to separate the economic aspects of this regulation from the geopolitical aspects. Ever since Edward Snowden exposed the various backdoors through which social media platform surveillance capitalism is integrated with the surveillance state, it has been rightfully rejected. Across the BRICS, particularly in Brazil and South Africa, the issue of regulating social media platforms is not only a matter of protecting citizens and children from harmful content, but also a matter of digital sovereignty.
One reason Mark Zuckerberg’s recent vehement stance against social media regulation was understandable is that it would immediately lead to significant cost savings.
How refusing regulation benefits Musk and Zuckerberg
It is difficult for Elon Musk to estimate the value of repealing the Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act. It is important to understand not only the direct benefits to Musk, but also the indirect benefits. One reason Mark Zuckerberg’s recent rant against social media regulation was warranted is because it would immediately lead to significant cost savings. It’s not just internal content moderation, which is one of META’s most human-intensive tasks. But it also requires expensive contracts with third-party fact-checkers who seek to provide an “independent” opinion on the veracity of posts. This is the same as being told that Mazda no longer needs to install seat belts or airbags in its cars, nor does it need to meet smog safety standards. Liberalizing safety would immediately reduce costs for Facebook, just as it did for X. There is also some evidence that it leads to some users leaving the platform, but switching costs are high and as regulations ease, platform operators have more room to distribute things that are sticky and enticing. Masu. Content containing party propaganda.
But for people like Elon Musk, the indirect benefits of repealing laws that require platform operators to safely design their products are probably far more important. Mr. Musk has built his communications platform into a powerful and almost completely opaque propaganda platform that will soon be at the disposal of the American president. Complying with online safety laws will require Mr. Musk to blunt this propaganda tool and expose it to public scrutiny and accountability. By posing as a defender of free speech, he ended up currying favor with President Trump, who was about to go to jail on sedition charges, and gave him access to political power.
Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuckerberg define censorship purely in terms of state action, and not censorship by private actors (for example, Mr. Musk, who reportedly adjusts algorithms to increase the visibility of Mr. Musk’s own posts). It promotes a version of freedom of expression that is very tolerant of censorship (censorship by its own engineers). As I show in a recent book, this is an approach with deep historical roots in the United States, but such free speech philosophies are also being challenged in the United States. It is also in sharp conflict with the EU’s approach to free speech, which allows for various forms of speech regulation, independent of the state and subject to appropriate checks and balances.
Any legal challenge to the Digital Services Act is unlikely to succeed on free speech grounds, and as my recent research explores, any philosophy that tolerates more regulation of communications and media is unlikely to succeed. has deep historical and constitutional roots in European countries. . That is why, in Elon Musk’s view, the political solution that produced the result should be undone.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the authors and do not represent the position of LSE British Politics and Policy or the London School of Economy and Political Science.
Image credit: Anna Moneymaker on Shutterstock
Did you like this post? Then sign up for our newsletter to receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
