According to the statements of many political leaders, Elon Musk has become one of the greatest threats weighing on European democracy. Therefore, it should be combated urgently, in particular by suspending or even banning the X network on French territory. President Macron denounces a “reactionary international” and Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot even considers the banning of X “possible”.
What do you think? You don’t become the richest man in the world by a stroke of luck. Undoubtedly, Elon Musk is one of the most visionary entrepreneurs of our time. That being said, many of his outlandish statements relating to European policy rightly arouses criticism. We do not support his lunatic positions. Does man therefore constitute a danger for the sovereignty of the States of our continent?
He is first criticized for his “interference” in the politics of several European states. Certainly, he did not hold back from commenting fiercely on European political life. But, legally, interference designates the intervention of a foreign power in the affairs of a State. However, even if Musk will soon be inaugurated and will represent the United States at the highest level, he is not yet officially Secretary of State: he still acts in a private capacity. Furthermore, when, in 2017, Barack Obama recommended voting for Emmanuel Macron, we did not hear anywhere about “interference”. On the contrary, the press greeted this “magnificent support” with joy and pride.
A multitude of intellectuals, representatives, unions and journalists today consider that Musk’s influence would threaten the electoral process. Could this be the first time that a media mogul has influenced political life? No. It’s as old as democracy. Why be indignant about it even though, strangely, no one is indignant when the billionaire Mathieu Pigasse, press boss (majority shareholder of Worldof the Inrockuptiblesetc.) declares in Release : “I put my financial interests at the service of my ideas. (…) I want to put the media that I control in the fight against the radical right”? Besides, he has every right to do so.
Note also that Elon Musk does not control a traditional media as such but uses his profile on X to give, every five minutes, his opinion on anything and everything through generally crazy tweets. He exercises his freedom of expression. Neither more nor less. Like anyone. Starting with his detractors. Yes but, we will be told, 212 million people are subscribed to his account. So what? Let’s ask the question differently: is there a point where popularity would deprive you of your freedom of speech? A stage where you would – at the very least – be obliged to express yourself sparingly and with reserve? No. Absolutely not. If yes, from how many millions? Should we legislate on this? Absurd. Obviously, freedom of expression also has limits. If he makes defamatory, slanderous, racist or inciting hatred comments, Musk, like any citizen, is liable to criminal prosecution.
“Save” democracy
We will be told that Musk is a danger because of his ability to “manipulate” public opinion. Let us immediately note the comical nature of this speech aimed at “saving” democracy by depriving all users of X of the right to express themselves. According to them, democracy would be a regime where representatives are elected by means of a vote expressed by a group of fragile, easily influenced and vulnerable people who absolutely must be protected against themselves. People who are too intellectually weak to exercise discernment. But is this conception of humanity not precisely the conception of the intellectuals who – before the consecration of democracy – fought precisely not “for” but “against” democracy? That of the people who thought democracy impossible? People who, as Emmanuel Kant already denounced, wanted to keep men “under guardianship”. It’s strange because, before hearing them, we naively thought that democracy was a system based on the conviction that citizens are able to make a free and informed choice independently of the influences to which they are exposed.
Banning “X” in the name of democracy? Seriously ? Following this logic, why stop there? Since there is always a danger of abusing any freedom, why not eliminate them all to protect democracy? Isn’t our system supposed to be based on trust in humans? With, obviously, regulations, in this case, the Digital Service Act (DSA) to which all social networks are subject in Europe and notably ensuring transparency on moderation choices (The European Commission opened an investigation in December 2023 targeting X, suspected of breaches of new European standards: Editor’s note). Should we go further? Because, with all due respect to the censors and scapegoat priests, the truth is that the real problem is not, fundamentally, Elon Musk. It’s not even X. But the abuses which, on all social networks, can be committed by the hundreds of millions of users.
Reason why one of the two signatories of this forum has – in his capacity as Secretary of State for Digitalization in Belgium – adopted on April 11 and 12, 2024, during the Belgian presidency of the European Union, the Declaration of Louvain-La-Neuve, signed by the 27 Member States. It aims to empower users by allowing those who wish to do so to have their identity authenticated by implementing labeled signage based on a European regulation called eIDAS. Clearly, this system, if implemented, will allow everyone to distinguish real and false profiles. It is not obligatory and it can also, third possibility, be adopted by someone wishing to keep a pseudonym (while agreeing to be authenticated by the authorities). Its great advantage is to allow users who wish to only interact, via a filter system, with real profiles, that is to say people whose identity can be found in the event of disputes, people who accept and assume the consequences of their behavior and writings on social networks, in short, responsible people. This would make it possible to considerably reduce the violence existing on these networks and reconnect with conviviality and reasoned debate.
Strengthening the weapons of democracy
In a world where freedom of expression seems increasingly disruptive, the response must not be to diminish freedom of expression but to provide it with the means to flourish by limiting its abuse. In this vein, we must strengthen more than ever the primary weapons of democracy, which are education and culture, critical thinking and the humanism of the Enlightenment. We urgently need to have the regulatory and technological tools that allow us to exercise our lucidity, our critical thinking and our responsibility.
2025 is the European Year of Digital Citizenship Education. A good year to question the universal society that we want to build together. We do not want a society that sweeps taboos under the rug. Hiding what we don’t want doesn’t make it cease to exist. Very often, it is actually the opposite that happens. Especially in the age of social media…
In a context where digital Europe finds it difficult to compare with its neighbor across the Atlantic, does muskophobia not reveal a frustration with our own failings? The pusillanimity of the political, media and academic world in the face of a certain number of subjects about which it has become difficult to talk in France and in Europe (communitarianism, anti-Semitism, security, immigration, integration, social cost of the ecological transition, etc.) leads to social anger and fuels the right and left extremism which is budding almost everywhere. When the press does not address these issues in depth, social networks serve as an outlet. By condemning Musk, are we not confusing cause and effect?
We find ourselves in this absurd situation where our great continent which saw the birth of democracy, human rights, science, progress, etc. is now terrified by the tweets of an American billionaire…
Should we ban X or create our own networks? Ban Musk or develop a real European digital strategy? In the same way that the election of Trump revealed our military dependence on the United States and the precarious nature of the security of our continent, Musk’s rantings are the mirror of our weaknesses and our cowardice. In either case, they must be an opportunity for a salutary start for Europe.
*Corentin de Sallescientific director of the Jean Gol Center And Matthew MichelSecretary of State for Digitalization (Belgium), members of the Belgian (liberal) Reform Movement.