SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
disinformation
Musk Slammed for Spreading Disinformation as He Seeks to Boost Far Right in Europe
Musk wants countries including Germany "to be weakened and plunge into chaos," said one critic.
Jan 06, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday was the latest European leader to lambast Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO and top adviser to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, for his meddling in political battles in Europe after he exerted enormous influence over the U.S. elections.
In a foreign policy speech in Paris, Macron expressed disbelief that Musk, who owns the social media platform X and has used it to boost far-right ideologies in the U.S., would now "support a new international reactionary movement and intervene directly in elections, including in Germany."
Displaying an apparent "sense of having the world as his stage," as Jackson James of the German Marshall Fund toldThe Hill, Musk wrote in an op-ed at the German magazine Welt am Sonntag last week that "as someone who has invested significantly in Germany's industrial and technological landscape, I believe I have earned the right to speak candidly about its political direction."
According to Musk, that direction should move toward Alternative for Germany (AfD), the far-right party that last year included a candidate who asserted the Nazi paramilitaries were "not all criminals."
The party is virulently ant-immigration and has been designated by the German domestic intelligence service as a "suspected extremist" organization. Authorities also warned last month that other states could attempt to influence the country's snap elections in February through disinformation, cyberattacks, and other means.
As German voters prepare to go to the polls, AfD has about 20% support in recent opinion polls, compared to an alliance between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU), whose support stands at 31%. All the country's political parties have said they would not form a coalition with AfD.
In his op-ed Musk invoked the sexual orientation of AfD co-chair Alice Weidel, suggesting the party isn't on the far right.
"The description of AfD as far-right is made obviously false simply by noting that Alice Weidel, the party leader has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka!" wrote Musk. "Does that sound like Hitler to you? Please."
Lars Klingbeil, leader of German Chancellor Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democratic Party, compared Musk to Russian President Vladimir Putin, tellingFunke media group that "both want to influence our elections and are deliberately supporting the AfD, the enemies of democracy."
"They want Germany to be weakened and plunge into chaos," Klingbeil said.
Musk's commentary on Germany's upcoming elections has tended toward vulgar, with the SpaceX CEO responding to accusations of meddling by calling Scholz "Chancellor Oaf Schitz or whatever his name is."
When a researcher in Finland said on Sunday that Musk is "rapidly becoming the largest spreader of disinformation in human history," the top adviser to the incoming president of the United States replied: "F U retard."
In the United Kingdom—where Musk has significant business interests, as he does in Germany—the entrepreneur last week boosted the far-right Reform Party, adding days later that the organization's leader, Member of Parliament Nigel Farage, "doesn't have what it takes."
Musk met with Farage and Reform treasurer Nick Candy last month at Trump's Florida estate, and Candy told The Financial Times recently that Musk could be a billionaire donor to the party through his electric vehicle company, Tesla, which provides grid batteries in the U.K.
As he's promoted Reform—which opposes "uncontrolled immigration" and would impose drastic cuts to "wasteful government spending"—Musk has taken aim at the center-left Labour Party.
On Sunday Musk took to his social media platform, formerly known as Twitter, to ask whether the U.S. should "liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government."
Musk attacked Jess Phillips, parliamentary undersecretary of state for safeguarding, as a "rape genocide apologist" for denying requests for the Home Office to open an inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the town of Oldham.
Phillips should "be in prison," Musk said—a comment that Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party said amounted to the "poison of the far right" and led to serious threats against Phillips.
Musk accused Starmer of being "complicit in the rape of Britain" by allegedly failing to confront a child sexual abuse scandal more than a decade ago in northern England. Starmer defended his record as the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as Phillips'.
“And those attacking Jess Phillips, whom I'm proud to call a colleague and a friend, on protecting victims—Jess Phillips has done 1,000 times more than they've even dreamt about when it comes to protecting victims of sexual abuse throughout her entire career," said Starmer on Monday. "And when I was chief prosecutor for five years, I tackled that head-on, because I could see what was happening, and that's why I reopened cases that have been closed and supposedly finished."
The prime minister added that "those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible, they're not interested in victims. They're interested in themselves."
Ed Davey, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats Party, said Monday that "people have had enough of Elon Musk interfering with our country's democracy when he clearly knows nothing about Britain."
"It's time to summon the U.S. ambassador to ask why an incoming U.S. official is suggesting the U.K. government should be overthrown," said Davey. "This dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric is further proof that the U.K. can't rely on the Trump administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Can We Do as Democracy’s Enemy—Disinformation—Gains Ground?
Deep change requires courage. So, with pounding hearts let us jump into this contentious arena.
Dec 23, 2024
It’s a crisis. America is now among 11 nations deemed most threatened by both mis-and disinformation.
Little wonder that almost 90% of us fear our country is on the “wrong track.” And, President-elect Trump has led the way with 492 suspect claims in just the first hundred days of his first presidency. Then, before the 2020 vote, in a single day he made 503 false or misleading claims. By term’s end he’d uttered 30,573 lies, reports The Washington Post.
Now, he is joined by his promoter Elon Musk who is flooding his own platform X with disinformation—for example, about the bipartisan end-of-year funding deal.
The stakes are high as “post-truth is pre-fascism,” warns Yale history professor Timothy Synder in On Tyranny. Pretty grim.
Some play down our current “mis-and-disinformation” crisis as nothing new. Referring to the Vietnam War era, the Heritage Foundation says “Trump is not guilty of any lie, falsehood, fabrication, false claim, or toxic exaggeration that equals the lies of one past president [Lyndon Johnson] whose Alamo-sized ego caused the deaths of thousands of Americans.” In 2018, Heritage dismissed Trump’s lies as insignificant embellishment about “his wealth, his girlfriends of decades ago, or the size of his inaugural crowd.”
Yet, his more recent lies have had deadly consequences. Playing down the severity of Covid-19, Trump described it as “like the flu,” “under control,” and “already disappearing.” His casting doubt about protective measures likely contributed to “tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths,” reported health scientists.
After losing the presidential race in 2020, he repeatedly reinforced unsubstantiated questioning of electoral integrity. “Trump’s big lie”—sparking a violent insurrection on January 6—caused multiple deaths and helped trigger stricter voter-registration laws.
Trump’s actions may have taken us into a new era some call “post-truth” politics. So, what might this mean? And how might we learn from democracies standing up against mis- and disinformation?
Lies are about a particular event—as in former President Bill Clinton’s denial of an extramarital affair; whereas “post -truth” refers to a “shift to another reality” in which facts don’t matter anymore, observes Irish philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi.
The stakes are high as “post-truth is pre-fascism,” warns Yale history professor Timothy Synder in On Tyranny. Pretty grim.
But to step up most of us need to sense the possibility of success, or at least movement in the direction of well-being. So, where might we find grounds for honest hope? Let’s look at what courageous peer nations are doing.
Between 2011 and 2022, 78 countries passed misinformation and disinformation laws covering social media, including Germany’s “anti-hate-speech law.” Yes, some measures have been criticized for unintended consequences. In authoritarian states and those with weak guardrails against misuse, they can cause harm. As in the monarchy Bahrain. It used fake news laws to control content and threaten journalists with arrest. Some critics note that Germany’s anti-hate-speech risks “over-blocking” content.
But we cannot afford to give up.
Fact-checking news websites such as PolitiFact and Snopes—flagging content on social media—are valiant efforts. So far they’ve been only moderately helpful, but we can learn from their experience to create a holistic, long-term approach to countering mis-and-disinformation.
One key will be more independent and public journalism, including PBS and NPR, driven not by narrow profit or partisan agendas. As local journalism—perhaps easiest to hold accountable—has suffered a sharp decline in the past decades, state and local governments can step up with financial support and incentives. Here, many peer nations can inspire us.
Several have much to teach us about addressing disinformation with public news media. One exemplar is New Zealand with a unique approach. Since 1989, its Broadcast Standards Authority has offered an easily accessible, transparent online platform for any citizen to call out disinformation. The authority is tasked with investigating and requiring removal of what is both false and harmful material.
The BSA seems to have been both cautious and effective.
In the early years, complaints were upheld in 30% of cases. But by 2021-22, those upheld had shrunk to just under 5%. That’s a big change. And, a possible implication? Knowing one can be exposed for harmful lies can discourage perpetrators.
“BSA has, over more than three decades, overseen a standards system that has been a game changer in delivering on a vision of freedom in broadcasting without harm,” says its chief executive Stacey Wood.
Want to know more?
See our exploration in Crisis of Trust: How Can Democracies Protect Against Dangerous Lies?
Another key?
Strengthening media literacy. Sadly, as of 2023 only three states required media literacy classes. So let us quickly spread this opportunity to strengthen our ability not only to critically assess information but also identify motives behind the lies. The News Literacy Project provides helpful resources and programs.
Finally, we can encourage public debate and action to transform social media platforms into fact-based public discourse, functioning without harm. “At the end of the day,” observes Cornell psychologist Gordon Pennycook, “you cannot use psychological interventions to resolve this problem. There are structural, systematic, underlying problems that need to be dealt with.” Platforms such as X systemically spread disinformation.
So, what can we do?
Initiatives around the world are calling for public-or-user-owned platforms, such as the Platform Cooperativism Consortium. We can strengthen emerging alternatives like Bluesky or Mastodon, as we simultaneously urge for public regulation, such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act.
There’s no “silver bullet,” of course. But the good news is that many Americans are awakening to the disinformation crisis after experiencing tragically unnecessary Covid-19 deaths and facing today’s unprecedented lies from our president-elect.
For sure, deep change requires courage. So, with pounding hearts let us jump into this contentious arena. We can spark discussion-and-action commitments within our own families, friendship circles, schools at all levels, and workplaces. We can fortify our determination by exploring and sharing the innovations of others.
Together, we can make history as we help save our democracy from today’s deadly disinformation plague.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The FCC as Trump's Right-Wing 'Speech Police'
Brendan Carr pretends to be a defender of free-speech rights when it suits his right-wing agenda but disappears into the ether when he should be protecting expression that doesn’t align with Trump’s authoritarian aims.
Dec 06, 2024
President-Elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Federal Communications Commission has an on-again/off-again relationship with the First Amendment.
Brendan Carr pretends to be a defender of free-speech rights when it suits his right-wing agenda but disappears into the ether when he should be protecting expression that doesn’t align with Trump’s authoritarian aims.
His mind-bending inconsistencies on free-speech rights would sound alarms under normal circumstances, especially for someone tapped to lead the federal agency that oversees the media sector. But these aren’t normal times. And Carr’s dodgy doublespeak on government censorship seems designed to please an incoming president who’s intent on undermining the essential freedoms that flow from the First Amendment.
Carr vs. the facts
During a September hearing before the House of Representatives, Carr refused to speak out against Trump’s suggestion that ABC should lose its broadcast licenses because two of its journalists had fact checked the former president during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead he told members of the House Commerce Committee that the law and the First Amendment guide all of his decisions — an assertion that doesn’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
Carr has already weaponized his future role as the government’s top media regulator by threatening to shut down the speech of anyone who questions Trump’s leadership.
In an October Fox News interview, Carr came after CBS for airing an edited interview with Harris during 60 Minutes. Editing interviews is a standard practice of television journalism, but Carr suggested that CBS violated the FCC’s seldom-invoked news-distortion policy, adding that the government could punish the network. In particular, he said that the 60 Minutes interview could factor into the agency’s review of the Skydance-Paramount merger (Paramount is CBS’ parent company).
Carr then took to Twitter to attack NBC after Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live, wrongly calling it “a clear and blatant effort to evade the equal time rule” — even though NBC did provide Trump equal time later that same weekend. Carr suggested on a subsequent Fox News appearance that the FCC should “keep every remedy on the table,” including revoking the broadcast licenses of local television stations owned by NBC and Telemundo, subsidiaries of Comcast.
“The FCC traditionally avoids regulating broadcast radio and television content except in extremely narrow circumstances, such as indecency,” Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González wrote in a commentary for The Hill. “ … Carr has shown that he is willing to break with [this] longstanding and bipartisan FCC precedent to punish Trump’s detractors.”
America’s top censor
In November, Carr went on the attack again. In a letter addressed to the CEOs of the world’s largest technology platforms, he argues that they are facilitating “censorship” by allowing fact checking on their sites — something they as private companies have an unambiguous First Amendment right to do. In Carr’s distorted view, however, such fact checking violated Americans’ right to be misinformed.
Carr is “rushing to be America’s top censor,” Mike Masnick, a widely read champion of the First Amendment, wrote at Techdirt. “Threatening to revoke broadcast licenses over unfavorable coverage is a blatant First Amendment violation. The government cannot use its licensing power to control or punish the speech of private actors. Carr surely knows this but doesn’t seem to care.”
It’s hard to comprehend how anyone who’s read the 45 words of the First Amendment could come away with such a blatant misunderstanding of its intent. Carr’s recent actions have made it necessary to repeat the obvious: The First Amendment protects people from government censorship; it does not protect government actors like Trump and Carr from criticism and fact checking.
Turning the FCC into the ‘roving speech police’
Carr has already weaponized his future role as the government’s top media regulator by threatening to shut down the speech of anyone who questions Trump’s leadership.
But it wasn’t long ago that Carr was preaching from a different pulpit, although with the same aim: to silence opposing views and advance his highly partisan agenda.
In March 2020 — as the global pandemic set in — Free Press called on the FCC to offer guidance on its interpretation of the agency’s “broadcast-hoax rule.” At the time a number of licensed broadcasters had aired false and misleading information about the COVID-19 crisis without providing the kinds of context or disclaimers the rule suggests.
Rather than take up Free Press’ good-faith suggestion, Carr went on the attack, making the false claim that our media-democracy organization “want[ed] to turn the FCC into a roving speech police empowered to go after the left’s political opponents” (emphasis added).
In actuality, the Free Press petition merely asks the FCC to issue guidance on the broadcasting of disinformation about COVID-19 at a time when thousands of Americans had already succumbed to the disease.
Violating his First Amendment oath
Carr auditioned for the lead part at the FCC by repeatedly threatening to do what he once falsely accused Free Press of doing: turning the agency into the “roving speech police.” And his anti-free-speech stridency has captured the attention of Elon Musk, who has leveraged his control of X’s algorithms to amplify Carr’s tweets — while positioning his broadband access company Starlink to benefit from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants that flow through the FCC.
As Masnick wrote: “Carr is smart and he knows exactly what he’s doing here. He is couching his extreme censorial desires in the language of free speech, knowing that most people won’t know enough or understand the details and nuances to recognize what he’s doing.”
Free Press is tracking Carr’s First-Amendment flip flops very closely, and exercising our right to call out Trump’s pick to chair the FCC whenever he fails to honor his sworn oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Carr is duty bound to ensure that government forces don’t restrict the speech of private individuals and entities. As the recent past shows, however, he routinely fails to protect free speech with any consistency, preferring to wrap himself in dishonest rhetoric about the First Amendment as he pursues his — and Trump’s — desire to censor others.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular